|
b. 31-32
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The missing two accents on the penultimate semiquaver in the R.H. in bar 31 and the 3rd semiquaver in bar 32 may be an oversight of the engraver of FE or of Chopin himself. We suggest adding those marks like it is in analog. bars 33 and 34. One accent, in bar 31, was added by the reviser of EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
GE overlooked the fingering digit. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In FE, one can see traces of removal of the additional crotchet stem for the c1 note on the 2nd beat of the bar in the proofreading. The stem is most probably a mistake caused by the Chopinesque manner of writing notes on ledger lines – see the Mazurka in B category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain notes on ledger lines |
||||||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The missing staccato mark in GE is most probably an oversight of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 32-34
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In bars 32 and 34, we add indications specifying the division of the passage into two hands in the main text. Chopin indicated such a performance manner only with the placement of the rests. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
Minor, Op. 24 No. 4, 
