Issues : EE revisions
b. 52
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In A Chopin overlooked one of the slurs in the L.H. (in AI there are no slurs in this fragment at all). The engraver of FE (→EE2) omitted the previous slur too. In the remaining editions these patent inaccuracies were corrected. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||
b. 53-57
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The fingering of EE is an addition of Fontana. See also bars 53-54. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
b. 55-56
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
Lack of the tie of f1 is most probably a result of inattention of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE2). The tie is present in both autographs, it was also added in EE3 (→EE4). Cf. bar 56. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
||||||
b. 55
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
d1 as the 4th semiquaver of the bottom voice in the R.H. is a patent error of FE1 (→GE1,EE2→EE3). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
b. 56-57
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In bar 56 the earlier start of the slur in FE (→GE,EE; overlooked in EE2) seems to be an inaccuracy of the engraver, in spite of the fact that it is compatible with – according to us, apparently – lack of tie of f1. In turn, lack of the slur in bar 57 in FE (→GE1→GE1a→GE2→GE3) is almost certainly a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , GE revisions |