Issues : Errors of CLI
|
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
CLI has g category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors of CLI |
||||||||
|
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In CLI and FE (→EE) there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors of CLI |
||||||||
|
b. 27-28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
CLI is missing the lower note of the sustained octave. Most probably the copyist forgot to write 8 under both Gs. In EE2 there are no ties sustaining the octave, which is probably a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of CLI |
||||||||
|
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In CLI and FEcor there are no accidentals before the fourth in the lower voice, which is certainly a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of CLI |
||||||||
|
b. 27-28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In CLI the last beat of bar 27 and the 1st half of bar 28 are written in the part of the R.H. with the use of an octave sign, which, however, stops at the end of bar 27. The mechanical error of the copyist leaves no place for doubts, as there is no loco indication, with which the return to the written pitch was indicated back then. The musical context also unanimously indicates the place where the octave sign was supposed to end. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors of CLI |
1 as the 1st note of the last group of semiquavers. It is hard to assume that Chopin could have committed such a striking mistake.
returning e2 on the 12th semiquaver. This version, with repeated e
2, although acceptable from the musical point of view, is however certainly a mistake, which is proved by the 
