Issues : Errors in FE
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |
|||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , fz – f |
|||||||||
b. 22
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
The dots extending the e1-f1 second are not distinctly copied in FE, so in fact only the lower one is visible (perhaps some corrections were performed there). In GE they were completely omitted and from GE2 on, the upper voice was completed with a quaver rest at the end of the bar. The latter was introduced also in EE4. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 23-24
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
Lack of the slur in FE (→GE,EE2) is most probably accidental. In EE3 (→EE4) a slur embracing two bars was added, which is hard to contest. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||||
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
It is unclear whether the lack of the bottom note of the octave (G1) in FE (→GE,EE) is a result of the engraver's inaccuracy or Chopin's intervention. The fingering (the 1st finger changed to the 3rd one), which is justified only with an octave being struck, yet it can also be used on a single note (in EE it was changed to the one matching the version without the bottom note), does not help to solve this issue. We trust more the version of A, therefore, in the main text we depend chiefly on it. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »