|
b. 12
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The absence of a in the chord in the L.H. on the 1st quaver is the original version, proved by AI. Similarly in analogous bar 62. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||
|
b. 12
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
Lack of the staccato dots in AI is probably a reflection of a less accurate notation in this working manuscript. Nothing points to the fact that Chopin could have imagined performance of this octave passage in another articulation. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 13
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give four accents visible in FE (→GE,EE). The change of the markings' concept – with respect to AI – is also visible in the part of the R.H. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 13-15
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
At the beginning, Chopin marked the dynamic highlight of the endings of these bars with long accents (AI), which he then replaced with hairpins and the crescendo indication (editions). According to us, the indications do not have to be incompatible (cf. analogous bars 63-66), hence in the main text we suggest a possibility of considering the accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||
|
b. 13-17
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we take into account the fingering numeral written in AI. In EE Fontana added the fingering in the entire four-bar section. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
-c
in 
