b. 33-34
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
CLI has a sustained B as a bass note in these bars. This is the original version, moreover, it was almost certainly written with an error – same as in the adjacent bars, it was the B1-B octave that was supposed to be in this place (cf. e.g. bars 3 or 23-24). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Accompaniment changes , Errors of CLI |
||||||||
b. 33-36
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The dynamic indications in bars 33 and 36 constitute a part of frugal, yet undoubtedly authentic performance indications of FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 35-36
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In CLI the lack of hold of the bass octave is most probably the copyist's error. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of CLI |
||||||||
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In FE (→GE,EE) the indication seems to be valid only from the semiquavers in the R.H. According to us, it is however highly unlikely for this indication not to include also the long resounding octave in the L.H. Therefore, we consider it as the notation's inaccuracy and in the main text we propose a relevant minor correction of the sign's placement. See also bar 45. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Centrally placed marks |
||||||||
b. 35-37
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In FED the added not entirely clear signs may be interpreted as slurs, e.g., reminding of the legato articulation or underlining the dynamic change and beginning of the new phrase in bar 37. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information |