Issues : Errors in FE
|
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
In A the last quaver is the F-c fifth, yet the bottom note in FE1 is a G. This patent error was corrected in all remaining editions. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 63
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The version of FE (→EE3) is probably a result of misunderstanding of the notation of A. The later change of notation into two-part writing is an arbitrary invention of the reviser of EE4, which is of no significance in this context (cf. bar 31). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 68-70
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The lack of slurs in FE (→GE,EE3) is certainly an engraver's oversight. Slurs in A, although imprecise, rise no doubts as to their intentional compass. This is further confirmed by Chopin's correction of a sketchy slur in bar 69 in A, precising its scope. Slurs in EE4, generally consistent with A, are nevertheless an undoubted editorial revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 74
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
FE1 has an erroneous D as the 6th semiquaver, which was corrected in FE2. In GE and EE relevant revisions were also performed. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 74
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
Same as in the case of accents, the difference between the slur of A and the one of FE (→GE,EE) is too big to be attributed only to the engraver's negligence. The mark visible in the editions probably appeared as a result of Chopin's proofreading, yet its range, unrelated to the natural voice-leading, suggests that the composer's annotation could have been misinterpreted. Therefore, in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic notation of A, considering the literal reading and interpretation of the slur of FE as almost equal alternative possibilities. In addition, we give another possible reading of the slur in FE, inspired by the accent appearing in that edition, and combined with the probably overlooked slur and accent of A. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
