Issues : EE revisions
b. 163-164
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
Leading the L.H. slur until the beginning of bar 164 is much less justified than in the case of the R.H. slur due to the over two-octave f1-E leap. Therefore, it is quite likely that it is the slur added in EE3 that corresponds to Chopin's intention – the engraver of FE could have been under the influence of the R.H. slur while interpreting the slur of [A], perhaps written with a flourish. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||
b. 167
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In EE, the long accent was reproduced as a short one. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions |
||||||||
b. 173
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In FE (→EE1), there is no restoring c3. The unquestionable oversight, probably repeated after [A], was corrected in GE and EE2 (→EE3). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in EE |
||||||||
b. 185
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In GE, a raising B to B was added, most probably arbitrarily, before the bottom note of the 2nd crotchet. The reviser of EE3 also added that mark, probably under the influence of GE. However, we believe that the is not authentic, since avoiding a strict repetition of a progression's segments is characteristic of Chopin, cf. e.g. a nearly identical harmonic sequence in the Rondo in F Major, Op. 5, bars 438-440. In order to avoid misunderstandings, we add a cautionary in this place. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 200
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The missing accent was certainly overlooked by the engraver of EE1 (→EE2). An accent – a short one – was added in EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE |