Issues : Errors repeated in GE

b. 18

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

FE (→GE) did not repeat accidentals in the section of the scale placed under the octave sign. The notation of EE is compliant with the contemporary rules.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors repeated in GE

b. 48

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

 lowering c3 to c3 was overlooked on the 2nd quaver of the bar in FE (→GE,EE). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 55

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In the sources, the octave sign does not encompass the grace note, as a result of which, when interpreted literally, it is a b1 and not a b2. The notation of analogous bar 64 proves a mistake in the placement of the octave sign.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

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

b. 82

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In FE (→GE,EE), there is no  restoring f2. Such missing cancellations of previous alterations belong to Chopin's most frequent mistakes. There is a similar situation in bar 234.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 137-138

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

2 slurs in FE (→GE,EE) – possible interpretation

Slur suggested by the editors

..

In FE (→GE,EE), the slur begins from the 1st note of bar 138, in spite of the fact that at the end of the previous bar (a line above) the slur clearly points to a continuation. In two previous similar places (bars 113-114 and 121-122), the slur over the bar line is combined and separated, respectively. Interestingly, in FE, it is exactly the same when the theme returns – a continuous slur in bars 265-266, a separated slur in bars 273-274 and an ambiguous one in bars 289-290. However, in the case of the latter, the slur begins on the last quaver of the bar, which practically excludes an interpretation other than a continuous slur. In the case of the discussed bar, it also allows us to tip the scales in favour of a continuous slur. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Editorial revisions

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