|
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major
..
The differences in type, placement and even the number of accents, present in the sources, are considered in the previous remark, together with rhythm. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major
..
The long accent, written in A over the 3rd semiquaver in the R.H., was placed between the staves in FE (→GE1,EE, in the latter rather a short accent), so it can be interpreted as referring to both parts of the hands or only to the L.H. In GE2 (→GE3→GE4) the mark was changed to a short accent, clearly referring to the c minim. In the main text we give the accent between the staves modelled on FE, which in a certain manner previews the accents in the following bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 40
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major
..
In A there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 40
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major
..
It is uncertain whether the accent in A should be interpreted as short, which is indicated by its size, or as long, same as two subsequent in this bar. We give preference to the 2nd interpretation. Omitting the mark in FE (→GE,EE) is almost certainly a mistake, as Chopin's deletion of an accent marking the beginning of a five-element progression seems to be totally unlikely. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in FE |
returning c1 in the chord on the 4th quaver in the bar. This evident oversight by Chopin was corrected in 
