|
b. 2-11
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In AI, the staccato articulation of the quavers, separated with rests, accompanying the semiquaver figuration (in bars 1-3, 5-6, 9-11), is marked only in bars 1 and 5. There is no doubt that the dots written there are to be understood as a model, hence valid also in the remaining bars. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
EE2 omits accents, which was corrected in EE3 (→EE4), by changing the signs in the 2nd half of the bar for vertical accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
|||||
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The version of AI had to be also in [A], as the traces of its deletion are visible in FE. Similarly in bar 53, as well as in bars 11 and 61. The corrections visible in the discussed bar in AI prove that from the outset Chopin wavered as to the L.H. chords positions. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
|
b. 3-11
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The extensions of every second semiquaver of each fourth in bars 3, 7 and 11 are not marked in AI. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information |
|||||
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
Lack of the arpeggio mark in FE (→EE2→EE3) may be explained with the correction of the part of the L.H., performed by Chopin in FE1 (see the adjacent note). Chopin, involved in changes in the structure and content of the chords, probably did not think of careful indication of their performance, considering arpeggios of such a broad chord to be obvious. Similarly in bars 11, 53 and 61. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
