Issues : Errors in GE
b. 33
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
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
..
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
..
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
..
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
..
The missing staccato mark over c4 is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |