Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 58
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies 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. 68
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
According to us, the long accent would be more appropriate here than the short accent of A, which we consider as written inaccurately (cf. bar 66). In FE (→GE,EE) the sign was not included at all, which can be considered to be justified due to the less intense dynamics in bars 67-68 in comparison with bars 65-66. Taking this into account, in the main text we leave the application of the accent at the performer's discretion. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 72
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The arpeggio in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) embraces only two lower notes of the chord. It is certainly a result of a misinterpretation of A. In GE3 (→GE4) the mark was omitted. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 77-78
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In A (→FE) the tie sustaining c2 is written only in bar 78 (in a new line of the text). This patent oversight was corrected in GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
