Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
In this context, lack of the slur over the semiquavers in the R.H. must be considered as Chopin's inaccuracy, which is justified by the revision introduced in EE4. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 9
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
In EE six digits of Chopin's fingering were completed with an additional '1' at the beginning of the 4th group of semiquavers. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 12-13
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
Chopin's fingering of these bars had been already indicated in A, although the end of bar 12 is imprecisely described – the 4th finger on the 14th note does not follow from the previous arrangement of the hand. In a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE), Chopin added a relevant digit, however, it is uncertain whether he can be attributed the previous deletion of two '1's, over the 1st and 13th semiquavers. Considering the engraver's negligence to be a more plausible reason for their omission, in the main text we give all digits featured in A and FE. Both in EE and – which is much less frequent in the Etudes – in GE the indications of FE were completed at the beginning of bar 12, using Chopin's fingering of an analogous figure in bar 11. In EE the fingering of the 1st group of semiquavers in bar 13 was also completed. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 15-23
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The indications added by Fontana in EE describe the same fingering that Chopin indicated in bars 1-9. What is interesting is the fact that Fontana did not faithfully copy the indications from these bars, yet he performed a new edition, in which generally – yet not always – there are fewer digits than for the first time. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 19-23
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The slurs in A, despite being added in fragments, were undoubtedly meant to create one continuous slur, running from the beginning of bar 16 to the middle of bar 23. However, in FE (→GE,EE), the slurs between bars 19 and 20 are clearly separated. Moreover, nothing indicates that the omitted in FE (→GE1) continuation of the slur in bar 21, certainly by inattention, was to be connected with the slur beginning in bar 22 (in EE and subsequent GE,s the slur in bar 20 ends on the last note). It is hard to attribute this discrepancy only to the engraver's distraction, on the other hand, it is uncertain what a possible Chopin's proofreading of slurs considered, whether the composer actually wanted to resign from one slur and divide it into two-bar phrases. In this situation, in the main text we give the certainly authentic slurring of A, subject to the fact that Chopin's latest decision could have been the divided slurs of the editions. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
