b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In CLI there are no performance indications in the entire Etude. Both the indication of tempo and articulation was most probably added by Chopin in proofreadings of FE (→GE,EE) – cf. the beginning of the Etude in A minor, No. 2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Metronome tempos |
||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The indication in FE (→GE1→GE2→GE3→GE4, →EE) seems to concern only the semiquavers in the R.H. According to us, as it is hard to suppose that the long resounding octaves in the L.H. were to be played in different dynamics, it should be assumed as an inaccuracy of the notation. A respective change was also introduced in GE5. See also bar 45. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Centrally placed marks |
||||||||
b. 1-11
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The fingering in bars 1, 4 and 11, as the entire fingering given in the main text of the Etude based on FE (→GE,EE), certainly comes from Chopin. In EE Fontana completed it in bars 2 and 8-10 with the digits describing the fingering indicated by Chopin in a slightly more accurate manner. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In both known copies of EE2, the omitted accents were added by hand. They were also added in the later impressions of EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
||||||||
b. 1-11
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic pedalling of FE (→GE1→GE2,→EE). In later GE the indications were omitted – presumably by mistake – in bars 9-10. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |