Issues : GE revisions
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E 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 the Etude in C major, No. 1, bar 1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Dedications , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In the sources, the indications concerning the e1 crotchet are unclear. The fact of shifting the accent in A to the right may be considered as an irrelevant inaccuracy of notation or a suggestion of the sign's length. The version of FE seems to be even more puzzling, especially given the fact that it was most probably corrected – over the stave, to the right of the note there are visible possible traces of deletion of the accent. It is also unclear why the staccato dot was not included neither in GE nor in EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
b. 7
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 15
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In GE3 there are no crotchet stems, extending the bass notes G and c. The mistake was corrected in GE4 (→GE5). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 19
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: GE revisions |