Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In the main text we give the title as adopted in FE and confirmed in the engraver's copy of several Etudes (No. 5-8 and 12). The title included in CLI, although earlier, is also authentic – Chopin himself described in this way one of his etudes in a letter to a friend – and reflects Chopin's pragmatic approach to the issue of the pieces' names (cf. the original title of Berceuse Op. 57, "Variants"). Therefore, it is hard to assume that the extended titles of GE and EE were something more than a marketing ploy of the publishers, which, after all, were gladly used also in case of other genres, e.g., in waltzes, in which the authentic titles were extended with different adjectives: 'grande' in Op. 18, 24, 42, 'brillante' in Op. 34, 'nouvelle' in Op. 42 (see also Etudes Op. 25). We also give this dedication in the version of FE (→GE). Its extension in EE seems to be rather an idea of the publisher who, however, could have agreed it with Chopin. Apart from FE1 (→EE2→EE3), the erroneous initial of Liszt's name (J) also appears in some copies of FE2 and GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Dedications , GE revisions , Various titles |
||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 1-11
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The fingering in bars 1, 4 and 11, as the entire fingering given in the main text of the Etude based on FE (→GE,EE), certainly comes from Chopin. In EE Fontana completed it in bars 2 and 8-10 with the digits describing the fingering indicated by Chopin in a slightly more accurate manner. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
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 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The b3 note on the last semiquaver of CLI and EE could be easily considered as a mistake except for the fact that in analogous bar 53 the sources have the same text. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that in CLI we are dealing with the original version, while in EE with the editor's revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Main-line changes , Errors of CLI |
||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The slur added in EE3 (→EE4) is probably an arbitrary addition of the reviser of EE, who took into consideration the authentic slur in analogous bars 53-54. Situations, in which analogous places differ in performance indications, are very common in Chopin's pieces. It does not always mean that Chopin wanted to underline the diversity of their performance (e.g., in this case non legato in bars 5-6 and legato in bars 53-54). The lack of a slur may be considered here as a suggestion of a smoother, more homogenous phrasing of the entire eight-bar section. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
