|
b. 37
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The not entirely clear mark of A – hairpins (?), accent (?) – was reproduced in FE in a way which also offers different possibilities of interpretation. It was reflected in the differing arrangement of the mark in GE1 and EE. In subsequent GE,s the range of category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 37-39
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In EE whole-bar-long slurs over the part of the L.H. were added in bars 37 and 39. Nothing indicates a possible authenticity of this addition, although leaving the figurations in bars 37-40 without slurs must be considered as an inaccuracy of Chopin's notation. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
We leave the decision whether to include the accent written in A, yet omitted in the editions, at the performer's discretion. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The clear long accent in A was omitted in FE (→GE). It is not certain how it appeared in EE, as guessing such a detail by the reviser seems to be an incredibly lucky coincidence. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 39-40
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The slur of A, despite having been written as two lines, was, according to us, accurately interpreted in FE (→GE,EE) as one mark. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
in 
