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. 443-444

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Slur in FE (→EE), literary reading

Tie to a​​​​​​​1, contextual interpretation of FE

No slur/tie in GE
..

According to us, the slur of FE (→EE), additionally separating a group of two notes from a three-note motif, is a result of an erroneous interpretation of the tie of a1. (FE and EE differ in the arrangement of the noteheads constituting the a1-b1 second; as a result, the discussed slur of FE seems to be reaching b1, whereas in EE – a​​​​​​​1.)

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE

b. 447

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No mark in FE (→GE,EE1)

in EE2 (→EE3)

[] suggested by the editors
..

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 447

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

We add cautionary flats in the first half of the bar in the main text.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 448

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Wedges in FE (→EE)

Staccato dot in L.H. in GE
..

Both the change of a wedge for a dot over the L.H. quaver, and the lack of mark in the R.H. are most probably the result of negligence of the engraver of GE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE

b. 448-449

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

2  signs in FE (→GE)

from c1 in EE

from b suggested by the editors
..

!!!    ZMIENIĆ   !!!

In FE (→GE), the engraver placed two separate  hairpin marks – the former in bar 448 and the latter in bar 449. It must be an inaccuracy of the engraver (cf. the marks in bars 450-451 and 452-453), most probably caused by the fact that in FE bar 449 a new line (missing endings of such elements of notation as slurs, dynamic hairpins, particularly when transitioning to a new line or page, are a frequent mistake of the editions). In EE, the reviser justly placed one mark. We suggest beginning the hairpin right after the  mark.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE