Issues : GE revisions
b. 7
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In the chord in the middle of the bar, GE1 has a b crotchet instead of an a minim, whereas the f minim is assigned to the L.H. The reviser of GE2 corrected only the pitch of that note, leaving the erroneous rhythmic value and division into parts. It is unclear how those mistakes occurred, yet the correctness of the version of FE (→EE) is unquestionable. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||
b. 25-26
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In FE (→EE), the dashes marking the range of crescendo are present only in bar 25. It must be an inaccuracy, most probably caused by the transition into a new line – marking the range of cresc. on such a short section would not make sense. That conclusion is confirmed by analogous bars 29-30, in which the dashes are led until . In GE, the markings were completely omitted in both analogous places. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
in GE may be either a random mistake of the engraver or a revision unifying it with the marking in bar 22 (the subsequent mark, in bar 31, was already reproduced correctly, yet this bar is already on the next page of GE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||
b. 33
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
An earlier beginning of the slur in GE is most probably an inaccuracy of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |