|
b. 123-124
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
Interpretation of the slurs of the L.H. in FC poses a significant challenge due to the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||
|
b. 130-133
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
The long accent in bar 130 must have been included in [A], whereas the remaining were added by Chopin in FC and probably in the base text to EE. The added signs have a form of long accents and this is how they were recreated in EE and GE1. In later GE, they were changed to common, short accents. The signs in FC are placed more or less between the staves and they probably concern both hands. In FE, EE and GE1 they were placed under the R.H., whereas in GE2 (→GE3), another set of accents for the L.H. was added. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||||||
|
b. 138
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
The corrections visible in FC in this and the previous bar – shift of category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FC |
sign written over the slurs. According to us, it is more likely that the slurs are supposed to create one sign. The slurs of 
from bar 137 to bar 138 and addition of con forza – prove a possible addition of indications in all three Stichvorlage manuscripts by Chopin.