b. 62
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
We consider the lack of hairpins in FE (→GE,EE) as a result of the engraver's negligence, which is indicated by the omission of a few other marks in this bar (ties, slurs, , wedge). Intentional renouncement of the indications in this place seems to be highly unlikely from the musical point of view. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
Lack of the wedge in the editions is most probably a result of a mistake committed by the engraver of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
Lack of the ties sustaining the inner notes of the chord and the lower slur (a1-g1) is probably a result of the engraver's distraction (cf. bar 22). Apart from this one, in FE additional five indications of A were omitted – a triplet slur, wedge, accent, and . It suggests a major lack of attention at the time of working on this bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The mark written in A under the first chord has a form of a typical long accent. Despite this fact, in the main text we suggest hairpins after authentic marks in bars 12 and 52. In FE (→GE,EE) the mark was overlooked. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in FE |
||||||
b. 63
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
Lack of the slur in FE (→GE1) is certainly a mistake. The slur was added in EE and subsequent GE,s. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |