b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The arpeggio mark before the first tenth chord of the Etude is, according to us, to be understood as a general indication, concerning all analogous situations (bars 11, 53 and 61). See also the next note. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
It is hard to determine whether the slurs were already in [A] or whether they were added in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE). Anyway, the slurs of unquestioned authenticity in this first out of a few similar places – also bars 11, 53 and 61 – may be easily considered as valid also in the remaining ones, devoid of slurring. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major
..
Chopin added the dynamic indication in this bar only at the time of preparing the Etude for print. Initially, he provided the f2 note with an accent (as in bar 2), yet eventually he chose a pair of hairpins. However, the signs are imprecise – the arms of the first one are of different length, while the second seems to be shortened in order to avoid a possible illegible mergence of the sign with the note in the L.H. or the semiquaver beam in the R.H. (GE reproduced it in such a way). In the main text we suggest an interpretation of the hairpins of A based on the above analysis and comparison with FE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Deletions in A |
|||||||||||||||
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
It is not certain if written in A was deliberately omitted in FE (→GE,EE). Given an identical indication appearing two bars earlier, Chopin's correction seems probable. Similarily in bar 107, see also bar 155. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |