mUltimate Chopin

Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 33

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

​​​​​​​ in FE (→EE)

​​​​​​​ in GE
..

The missing cresc. indication within the  mark must be a mistake of GE. However, it was not necessarily an oversight; the notation of FE could have been considered to be unnecessarily complicated or awkward.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 37-39

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

meno mosso in bar 39 in FE (→EE)

meno mosso in bar 37 in GE
..

It is unclear how the difference between FE (→EE) and GE occurred. According to us, it is a mistake of the engraver of GE that is most likely; he could have placed the meno mosso indication a line lower – the beginning of bar 37 in FE (→GE) is exactly over the beginning of bar 39.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 39

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

e1-g1 in FE (→EE)

c1-e1​​​​​​​ in GE1
..

The version of GE1 is almost certainly a Terzverschreibung, since nothing points to a possibility of a Chopinesque proofreading of that edition. It was already GE2 that considered it a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions

b. 49

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

f3 in FE (→GE,EE)

g3 in FEJ
..

The f3 note, present in FE (→GE,EE) as the 6th semiquaver of the bar, interferes with the regularity of the figuration and is most probably erroneous. It is confirmed by a most probably Chopinesque correction in FEJ.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Annotations in FEJ

b. 55

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Staccato dot in FE (→EE)

No mark in GE
..

The missing staccato mark over c4 is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE