|
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In the sources, the indications concerning the e1 crotchet are unclear. The fact of shifting the accent in A to the right may be considered as an irrelevant inaccuracy of notation or a suggestion of the sign's length. The version of FE seems to be even more puzzling, especially given the fact that it was most probably corrected – over the stave, to the right of the note there are visible possible traces of deletion of the accent. It is also unclear why the staccato dot was not included neither in GE nor in EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor
..
A (→FE→GE1,EE) includes an erroneous A2-C category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Terzverschreibung error , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Errors of A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major
..
Lack of the sign in EE may indicate distraction of the engraver, copyist (if it was a copy of A that was the base text to EE) or of Chopin himself, if it was another autograph that constituted the base text or if the dynamic signs were added by Chopin already after the copy had been prepared. Moreover, in EE there are no dynamic signs in bars 4-7. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||
|
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major
..
In EE1 the lowest note of the last beat in the R.H. is the erroneous a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
Cf. General Editorial Principles, p. 17. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
tenth. It is a patent error of Chopin in the number of the ledger lines. The pitch of the note was corrected in 
in 
1.
