![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
In the main text we reproduce the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
We give the time signature's indication after A. Although FE (→GE,EE) has a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , 4/4 or 2/2 |
||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we suggest an indication composed of the elements whose authenticity seems to be most plausible: category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f |
||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In the main text we give the legatiss. written in A (in AI this indication is absent). The change to legato in FE (→GE,EE) is probably a mistake. It is not clear whether the notation of A means that the indication is valid from the beginning of the piece or from the beginning of the two-part texture in the R.H. According to us, it is the second possibility that is more plausible. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |