|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor
..
Lack of slurs in EE3 is certainly an error. The slurs in EE4 were added as a part of far-reaching additions, including bars 2-16 (cf. also the note to bars 9-16). In both autographs, the slur in the 1st half of the bar does not embrace the extreme semiquavers, which is almost certainly only an inaccuracy of the notation. From the formal point of view, AI has such a slur also in the 2nd half of the bar, which in this manuscript is briefly marked as a repetition of the 1st. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor
..
The version of A (→FE) is almost certainly erroneous. It is revealed by the notation of AI in this bar and a compatible version of all sources in analogous bar 44. The correct text of GE and EE is most probably a result of revisers' actions, probably on the basis of comparison with bar 44. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of A |
|||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor
..
A includes the indication rittenuto (sic!). In the main text we give ritard., which could be a result of Chopin's proofreading of FE (→GE,EE). In AI there are no indications in bars 8-9. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor
..
From the graphic point of view, it is hard to consider the accent in A as long, however, it cannot be excluded that in this place the composer's intention is rendered better by the sign of AI. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
category imprint: Differences between sources |
in 
