b. 31
|
composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major
..
In the 1st chord in A (→FE1→GE1,EE3) there is no cautionary before g2, although a relevant accidental is written in the L.H. The sign was added in FE2, as well as in GE2 (→GE3→GE4) and EE4. A cautionary was added before f1 in the 5th chord in FE1 (→FE2,GE,EE). In addition, in FE1 a raising B to B was added, certainly by mistake. The latter was removed in FE2, GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major
..
While proofreading FE (→GE,EE), Chopin changed the topmost note of the 1st chord from f3 to c3. We consider this change to be independent from the articulation, which was inaccurately reproduced in the editions. Therefore, in the main text we give a chord in the corrected by Chopin form and with authentic performance indications written in A (a slur and a wedge). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes |
||||||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major
..
In A there is no before the topmost note of the 3rd chord in the R.H. It is undoubtedly a mistake, corrected in FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major
..
The cautionary before e1 in the 1st chord in the L.H. was added in GE and EE. In GE there is also a before B in this chord. It is certainly a remainder of the natural introducing B in the previous bar – the reviser of GE1 first added a cautionary in bar 32 and only then did he notice that the erroneous in bar 31 should be removed. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals |
||||||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major
..
In the sources there are two versions of the inner note of the 5th quaver:
The second version is certainly later and as such it should be considered as the main one. In relation to the aforementioned doubts, in the main text we adopt the certainly authentic version with c3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE |