Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 1-2

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No accents in CLI & EE2

Accents in FE (→GE) & EE3 (→EE4

..

In both known copies of EE2, the omitted accents were added by hand. They were also added in the later impressions of EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE

b. 1-11

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No pedalling in CLI

Pedalling in FE (→GE1GE2, →EE

Pedalling in GE3 (→GE4GE5

..

In the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic pedalling of FE (→GE1GE2,→EE). In later GE the indications were omitted – presumably by mistake – in bars 9-10.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No annotations in CLIFE (→GE,EE

Slur in FES

..

The line, added with panache in FES, may be interpreted as a slur underlining the legato articulation or phrasing.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 3

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No F1 in CLI

Octave in FE (→GE,EE

..

The lack of the lower octave in CLI is certainly an oversight. See bars 4-11.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of CLI

b. 3

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No fingering in CLI

Fingering in FE (→GE)

Additional fingering in EE

..

The fingering given in the main text, drawn from FE (→GE), is certainly authentic. In EE it was completed with digits added by Fontana, which, in this case, describes an alternative fingering.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions