|
b. 2-3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
In the main text we give the fingering of the L.H. written by Chopin in A. Only some of these digits were correctly reproduced in FE (→GE,EE). The editors assume that the most probable reason for this state of affairs is rather the engraver's negligence than Chopin's proofreading. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 2-6
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
We suggest to complete the slurs after Chopin's marks in analogous bars 16 and 20. In bar 6 the slur was already added in GE and EE4. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 2
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
In A there are visible traces of deleting the original version of the 1st quaver in the L.H. It seems that its notation did not go beyond the staff, it could have been, e.g., the F-c fifth. category imprint: Corrections & alterations issues: Corrections in A |
||||||||
|
b. 2-6
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The range and possible divisions of slurs in A are unclear. We suggest two possible interpretations. Perhaps it was the uncertainty concerning this issue that was the reason for the omission of the slurs in bars 3-5 in FE (→GE,EE). In this kind of rhythmically homogeneous, virtuoso figuration, possible breaks in slurs on the main beats of the bar do not influence the performance. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||
|
b. 2
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
We add a cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
before e