Issues : Errors in FE
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major
..
In the main text we give the title and dedication in the undoubtedly authentic version adopted in FE. The extensions of both the title (in GE and EE) and dedication (in EE) most probably come from the editors. See Etude in C, No. 1, bar 1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Dedications , GE revisions |
|||||||||||||||||
b. 2
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||||||||||||
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major
..
According to us, an accidental omission of cresc. in FE (→GE,EE) is the most plausible explanation in this case. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||||||||||
b. 6
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major
..
A has only a mark in the 2nd half of the bar, while FE (→GE,EE3) only marks in the 1st half. The marks added in the 1st half of the bar are undoubtedly a result of Chopin's proofreading, however, it is not entirely clear in the case of the mark omitted in the 2nd half of the bar. Therefore, in the main text we include the addition performed in FE (interpreting the mark as continuation of the previous one), yet we do not entirely renounce the hairpins written in A (cf. bar 7). A similar solution was introduced in EE4. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , Hairpins denoting continuation |
|||||||||||||||||
b. 7
|
composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major
..
In FE (→GE,EE) it is hard to determine whether the lack of the short mark written in A is a result of Chopin's proofreading or the engraver's oversight. In the main text we suggest a variant solution. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |