data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
The presence of wedge only for the second time (in bar 321), as it is in FE (→EE), is to be considered an inaccuracy, according to us. Chopin put the mark in this bar perhaps due to the missing hand transfer, but even then, it would not mean that he envisaged a different articulation for the 1st quaver in bar 320. However, most probably, the difference came into being by accident, as a result of inadvertence of Chopin himself or of the engraver. Taking that into account, in the main text we add a wedge in bar 320. An overlooked wedge also in bar 321 is most probably a mistake of GE.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: Errors in GE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins