Pitch
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 |
||||||||
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
..
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 |
||||||||
b. 65-66
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The version of CLI is definitely original. In the main text we give the more subtle version of FE (→GE,EE; in EE2 without the tie sustaining E). category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in EE , Accompaniment changes , Bass register changes , Abbreviated octaves' notation |
||||||||
b. 66
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
CLI has undoubtedly the erroneous c1 as the 12th semiquaver. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors of CLI |