mUltimate Chopin

Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 414-415

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Hairpin in FE

Hairpin in EE

No mark in GE & EE
..

The ​​​​​​​ hairpin for the L.H. was completely overlooked by the engraver of GE. In turn, the reviser of EE started it already at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE

b. 429-430

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

b1 tied in FE (→EE)

Slur in GE
..

The engraver of GE placed here an erroneous slur instead of the tie of b​​​​​​​1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 431

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No mark in FE (→GE)

in EE

[] suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we add a  sign, possibly overlooked by the engraver of FE (→GE). It was also added by the reviser of EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 439

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Crotchet e in FE (→EE)

Quaver e in GE
..

In GE, the lack of crotchet stem for e​ is most probably an oversight by the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 443

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Slur in FE (→EE), literal reading

Tie to a1 (contextual interpretation of FE)

No slur/tie in GE
..

The ambiguous curved line of FE (→EE) combines the last note of bar 443 (c2) with the top note of the first chord in bar 444.  According to us, the most likely interpretation of that curved line is a tie of the a​​​​​​​1 crotchet – Chopinesque ties were often erroneously interpreted by the engravers in a similar manner – and this is the interpretation we adopt to the main text. In GE, the curved line was omitted, perhaps due to interpretation difficulties. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE