|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of CLI |
||||||||
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The fingering given in the main text, drawn from FE (→GE), is certainly authentic. In EE it was completed with digits added by Fontana, which, in this case, describes an alternative fingering. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 3-4
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In Ap the rhythmic values of subsequent two-note chords of the lower voice in the R.H. create in those bars (as well as in subsequent repetitions) an alternating short-long scheme (semiquaver-crotchet). Sometimes the resounding length contrast is additionally underlined with accents. In the main text we give the homogenous, as far as the sound is concerned, version of FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Chopin's hesitations , Accompaniment changes |
||||||||
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
It is not clear how to understand the signs shaped in the form of accents visible in Ap at the end of bars 3 and 4. Therefore, in both places we offer alternative interpretations. A similar problem appears in analogous bars 11-12, 38 and 39. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||
|
b. 3-4
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
We present the literal interpretation of the slurs included in A, however, there is no doubt that Chopin considered this notation to be equal to one slur, as in bars 1-2. A similar hesitation, concerning the choice of space for leading the slur, is visible also in bars 41-42. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE |
in 
