b. 81-82
|
composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major
..
In GE the crescendo indication was divided into syllables, which in this edition was a routine procedure in the case when the range of the indication was indicated with the dashes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 83-84
|
composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 83-84
|
composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major
..
Initially, Chopin wrote the part of the L.H. in A one octave too high. He also committed a mistake at the time of writing the part of the R.H. – he overlooked the a1-a2 octave and noticed the error only when he was writing the fourth consecutive erroneous octave. After adding the correct notes, the erroneous ones remained not deleted, yet in spite of that the engraver correctly understood the notation and the text of FE (→GE,EE) is correct. category imprint: Corrections & alterations issues: Corrections in A , Partial corrections |
||||||||
b. 83
|
composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major
..
at the beginning of the octave run certainly corresponds to a performance intended by Chopin. The notation of A is an instance of Chopin's using a convention of placing indications inside, and not at the beginning of the range in which they apply. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Centrally placed marks |
||||||||
b. 84
|
composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major
..
Chopin added the arpeggio while proofreading FE (→GE,EE). In GE the sign was also added before the chord in the R.H. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |