mUltimate Chopin

Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 380

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No indication in FE (→GE,EE1)

a tempo in EE2 (→EE3)
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 383-384

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In FE (→GE), there is no ending of the slur in a new line. It is one of the frequent mistakes of first editions. The continuation of the slur was added by the reviser of EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Uncertain slur continuation , Errors repeated in GE

b. 383

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In GE, the engraver added a staccato dot for a​​​​​​​2. It is rather a result of inaccuracy than an intentional revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 384-385

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Staccato dots in FE (→EE)

No marks in GE
..

In GE, the engraver overlooked staccato dots for the 1st quavers in the L.H. in these bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 384-385

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

after 4. quaver in FE

under 4th quaver in GE & EE
..

In GE and EE, the earlier placement of the  markings is unintentional, resulting from an inept layout of text. There is a similar situation in bars 392-393.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies