Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 50-51

composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor

No fingering in A

Fingering in FE

GE1 (→GE2GE3)

GE4 (→GE5)

Our suggestion

..

The given in the main text fingering in the 2nd half of bar 50 was added by Chopin in a proofreading of FE. In this edition the 1st finger is repeated also over g at the beginning of bar 51, which seems to be an error (the digit was deleted in GE4 and GE5). In GE Chopin's indication of division between the hands with the use of digits under and above the notes was misunderstood. In EE Fontana modified and completed authentic indications.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 50-51

composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor

Tie to B in A (→FEEE)

Slur in GE1

GE2 (→GE3GE4GE5)

..

The tie sustaining B was inaccurately reproduced in FE, as a result of which, in GE it was interpreted as a phrasing and articulation slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 51-52

composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor

No fingering in A

Fingering in FE (→GE1GE2)

GE3 (→GE4GE5)

EE3 (→EE4)

Fingering written into FES

Our variant suggestion

..

The given in the main text fingering of bar 51 was added by Chopin in a proofreading of FE (→GE1GE2). Apparently, the deletion of the '2' digit (in ink) visible in FE should be understood as the '1' digit and this is the interpretation we include in the main text as a variant suggestion. The copy includes other signs (in pencil), which are probably also '1's over the 7th and 12th semiquavers in bar 51 and the 1st one in bar 52. However, the signs could be interpreted in another way, e.g., as an indication of performance with the R.H., therefore, we do not include them in the main text. In EE2 the final fragment of the Etude was provided with additional fingering and indications for the division between the hands contrary to the one written by Chopin. In EE3 (→EE4) those indications were removed, and four digits were added in bar 51.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Annotations in FES , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 51-53

composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor

E tied in A, GE2 (→GE3GE4GE5) & EE4

E repeated in FE (→GE1GE1a, →EE2EE3)

..

Lack of the ties sustaining the bass minims in FE is probably a result of lack of space at the bottom of the page. The revisers of GE2 (→GE3GE4GE5) and EE4 guessed Chopin's intention accurately.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 51-52

composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor

Slur in A

No slurs in FE (→GE,EE)

Slurs suggested by the editors

..

In bar 51, the sources do not have a slur over a group of four L.H. semiquavers. In the editors' opinion it is Chopin's oversight. In bar 52, only A has the slur comprising 6 semiquavers, which is probably due to the carelessness of the engraver of FE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE