![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Errors in FE
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor
..
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 36
|
composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor
..
In the pedalling of bars 29-36, added in a proofreading of FE, the last category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , No pedal release mark |
|||||
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor
..
According to us, it is highly unlikely that category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor
..
It is hard to determine whether the missing grace note at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar in FE (→GE,EE) is a result of the engraver's inaccuracy or Chopin's proofreading. In the entire Op. 10 such omissions of FE of certain elements written in the base text (A) appear so numerously that an oversight seems to be a natural and plausible explanation of the grace note's absence. On the other hand, while proofreading this Etude, Chopin, among others, deleted the ornaments in bars 2-3, 6-7 and 42, hence he could have also resigned from this ornament, given that he had already resigned from its equivalent in bar 63. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a variant suggestion with a grace note in brackets. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »