|
b. 62-64
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The undoubtedly authentic fingering of FE, given in the main text, was completed by Fontana in EE by adding his own alternative proposals. In bar 63 at the beginning of the 2nd group of semiquavers, an obvious mistake was committed by placing the indication of the 1st finger over d1. In GE the digit '5' over the 5th note in bar 62 was added. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
Lack of the lower octave in CLI may be a consequence of an oversight, however, due to a different version of the subsequent bar, it is not entirely sure. In FE the octave is written in an abbreviated form. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Abbreviated octaves' notation , Errors of CLI |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
According to us, it is better to perform the 2nd half of the bar with pedal, therefore, we suggest to add the authentic indications of FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
Two accents in the 2nd half of the bar have the form of long accents in FE, which we adopt to the main text. GE and EE3 (→EE4) have short accents (in EE2 the signs were omitted). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in EE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The version of FE (→GE,EE) adopted in the main text includes undeniable harmonic improvements in comparison with the original text of CLI. Similarly to bars 5 and 60, the incentive to introduce the changes could stem from the willingness to avoid parallel fifths in combination with the next chord. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Main-line changes |
-C in 
-B in