Issues : EE revisions
b. 67
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
This bar was omitted at the time of adding pedalling indications in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE). According to us, it is either a mistake of Chopin or the engraver of FE. The pedalling was completed in EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||
b. 70
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
It is unclear whether the lack of the mark is the notation's inaccuracy or a suggestion of continuing to use pedal as before. The additions in EE and GE3 (→GE4) were certainly performed by the revisers, therefore, we give a suggested similar solution in brackets. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , No pedal release mark |
|||||||
b. 73-75
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
It is hard to consider the very detailed fingering added in EE by Fontana as necessary in the ending of the Etude based entirely on one scheme. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||
b. 76
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
The simplified rhythmic notation of a1 on the 8th quaver in the bar used by Chopin in A (→FE) made the revisers of GE and EE to attempt its clarification or correction. The notation of EE strictly reproduces Chopin's intention, although at the expense of complicating the notation. In turn, in GE1 (→GE2) the addition of a dot extending the minim only replaced one imprecise notation with another. What is more, the notation provoked the reviser of GE3 (→GE4) to shift the minim to the 7th quaver, which practically eliminated this note being struck as part of the chord, totally distorting the figuration's contour in this place. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |