Issues : Errors in FE
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
It is unclear whether FE (→GE,EE) missing the first two fingering numerals written in A is a result of Chopin's proofreading or the engraver's inattention. A possible resignation from these hints could have been related to the change of the rhythmic value of the upbeat. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 1-4
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
In the main text we give the fingering of A concerning the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quavers in bar 1 (it was also reproduced in FE and EE) and the fingering numeral over the 9th quaver, added in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE). The authenticity of these indications is beyond any doubt, contrary to the limited, yet resulting in the same effect notation of GE and the notation of EE, completed by Fontana. See also the previous note. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
A crotchet as the rhythmic value of the upbeat in A could have been related to the original accentuation of bars 1-4, determining the crotchet beat. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that Chopin had in mind a dotted crotchet – cf. minims in the L.H. in bars 1-3 and 5-6, as well as crotchets in bars 4 and 7). In each case a quaver flag in FE (→GE,EE) was probably added by Chopin, therefore we adopt the version with the quaver to the main text (in FE an uncorrected crotchet rest was left in the L.H., which was corrected in GE and EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
We give the time signature marking after AI, although theoretically, Chopin could have introduced category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , 4/4 or 2/2 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
Chopin did not write the title of the piece in AI, although it is hard to believe that in August 1832, at the stage of completing the entire Op. 10, he could have even considered naming it differently than Etude. The conviction is not hampered by the fact that at the end of the editorial autograph of the Etude in E major, No. 3, Chopin uses the determination of tempo-character il presto con fuoco for the identification of the subsequent etude in the collection. In the main text we give the title and dedication in the undoubtedly authentic version adopted in FE. The extensions of both the title (in GE and EE) and the dedication (in EE) most probably come from the editors. See the Etude in C major, No. 1, bar 1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Dedications , GE revisions |
in the lost [A]. According to us, it is, however, much more likely that it was an arbitrary change of the engraver of 
marking in the Etudes – contrary to the manuscripts – even once, cf. the Etudes in C major, No. 1, F major, No. 8 and C minor, No. 12. The phenomenon is also present in other pieces, even in the most obvious cases, e.g., in the Etudes in F minor, Op. 25 No. 2, D
major, Op. 25 No. 8 or F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1. 
