Rhythm
|
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. 48-49
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In the main text, we adjust the semiquaver beam of the figure at the transition between bars 48-49 to the remaining, analogous figures. It is likely that breaking it into two beams was a simplifying solution of the engraver of FE, applied to avoid beams passing from one great stave to another. Chopin would often use beams going beyond a bar, e.g. in the L.H. part in bars 52-54 and analog. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||
|
b. 69
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
GE contains an additional crotchet stem next to the 5th semiquaver, b category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 70
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In FE, the semiquaver beam of the bottom voice was led until c category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
|||||
|
b. 94
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In FE, 3 notes making up the group on the 2nd quaver of the bar are semiquavers, as a result of which the triplet includes 3.5 semiquavers, together with the rest. The mistake was corrected both in GE and EE by shortening the last note to a demisemiquaver. The fact that it was indeed Chopin's intention is proven by a comparison with analogous bar 246. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
Minor, Op. 24 No. 4, 
