b. 56
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The accent in FE, most probably a long one, was added in GE and EE as a short one. In the main text we give a long accent, as in analogous bar 8. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||
b. 59-66
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The fingering in bars 59, 61 and 65-66 taken from FE (→GE,EE) and adopted in the main text, is undoubtedly authentic. Fontana, following the previous indications by Chopin, completed it in EE in bar 60. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 60
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In this context lack of in FE must be considered as the notation's inaccuracy, therefore, in the main text we propose to complete it. At the same time, we claim the solution proposed in GE and EE4 (two pedals changed in the middle of the bar) to be correct. In EE2 (→EE3) the pedal release mark was simply added at the end of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 60
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In the main text we give the long accent featured in FE (→GE1). The short accent remains in a few editions; it could be a result of a misunderstanding of this aspect of Chopin's notation. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||
b. 60
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
According to us, e2 in CLI is rather the original version of this place than a simple oversight of a . It is proved by other more schematic versions in CLI, as, e.g., in bar 64, in which a mechanical error seems to be unlikely. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Main-line changes |