b. 27
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the main text we suggest to add the slur in the L.H. Leaving without the slur only bar 27 may have resulted from graphic difficulties in FE (→GE), similarly as embracing with a slur only the end of the bar in A. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
|||||||||
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
We consider the omission of the accents by the engraver of FE (→GE,EE) to be very likely. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a variant solution with accents in brackets. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
b. 27-28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In A the slur embraces only the last semiquaver in bar 27 and the chord ending the phrase in bar 28. In FE (→GE), probably due to Chopin's proofreading, the slur is over the 2nd half of bar 27. In EE the slur was extended to the beginning of bar 28, which we consider to be the most accurate global interpretation of the composer's intention, including the ideas of the slur of both A and FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The sustained d3 note is most probably the original version. Chopin interfered with the text of FE in this bar on a number of occasions (rhythm in the L.H., a2), e.g., by adding a slur over both d3 notes, hence we can assume that he at least accepted the lack of hold. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE |