Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 17
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The articulation detail written in A could have been overlooked in FE. In spite of this, we prefer the notation of the editions, as in analogous situation in bar 57 Chopin already did not mark the separation of the bass note. The fingering also does not suggest an interruption of the passage's continuity. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The accent of A could have been overlooked in FE (→GE,EE), therefore, in the main text we give it in brackets. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 19-23
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
For each source we give the pairs of hairpins appearing under similar figures in the L.H. in the unified version. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||
|
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the main text we reproduce the dynamic hairpins after A. In the editions their range underwent a minor change, which can be however considered to not be devoid of meaning. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
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 |
in 
