Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
b. 11
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
An accidental omission of the mark in FE (→GE,EE) seems to be much more probable than Chopin's proofreading. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
b. 16
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
In this context, the missing mark is undoubtedly a result of Chopin's inattention, who added pedalling in a proofreading of FE, or – which is more plausible – of the engraver implementing this proofreading. The mark was added both in GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , No pedal release mark |
||||||
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
Omission of the accent in the editions is one of these numerous situations in which it is uncertain whether we are dealing with a common error or Chopin's proofreading. According to us, the 1st possibility is more plausible. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
The missing accent in the editions is probably an oversight of the engraver of FE, undetected by Chopin during proofreadings. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
b. 43
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
In the main text we give there, where Chopin wrote it in A, as emphasising the appearance of a figuration based on a new, dissonating chord seems to be justified. However, the interpretation adopted in the editions does not have to be erroneous, as Chopin would often use the notation in which such placed dynamic mark is binding from the beginning of the bar, cf., e.g., the Etude in C major, No. 1 bar 45. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Centrally placed marks |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »