Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 40
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
The vague mark in A may be interpreted as a slur. It seems that Chopin went out of ink at the time of writing, however, he did not take care of a discernible notation in A, nor did he add the slur while proofreading FE. Therefore, we do not include this mark in the main text. In EE3 (→EE4) a whole-bar long slur was added under the semiquavers. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||
|
b. 41-43
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
The slurs added in EE3 (→EE4) are most probably based on authentic slurs in bars 1-3. The revisers extended the analogy also to bar 40. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 42
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
The slur added in EE3 (→EE4) is an arbitrary decision of the reviser, yet not devoid of intuition – cf. bar 2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 42
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
The overlooked in FE (→EE2,GE1→GE2) tie sustaining e category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FEJ |
||||||
|
b. 47-49
|
composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor
..
In the main text we reproduce the fingering written in bar 47 in A (→FE). The arrangement of the digits under or above the notes indicates a division between the hands, which was misinterpreted in GE. Fontana also did not include (did not understand?) this hint in EE, suggesting a different division and repeating his own indications in bars 48-49 (except the first note in bar 49). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
1 tied in 
