![](/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
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In the main text we give the length-wise harmonised pair of category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 25
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The fingering digit for the lower voice, despite having been written by Chopin in FEcor, does not appear in FE (→GE,EE). It is probably a result of the engraver's inaccuracy. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 25
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In FE, before the empty space after the deleted c3 note, a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 25-26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The clearly long accents, written by Chopin in FEcor, were recreated in FE (→GE,EE) as short ones. Ap has even characteristic category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
b. 27-28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The range of cresc., despite having been written by Chopin in FEcor, is questionable. According to us, it goes further, until bar 29, in which there is a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »