|
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In AI Chopin initially wrote the 6th semiquaver as c category imprint: Corrections & alterations issues: Enharmonic corrections |
|||||||||
|
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we consider the fingering written in FED, in spite of the fact that – similarly as in the previous bars – it is unclear how to complete them. The indications added by Fontana in EE are more detailed and they partially indicate a different fingering. Two numerals, determining the 4th and 3rd fingers over the 13th and 14th semiquavers in bar 30, are most probably swapped. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED |
|||||||||
|
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The fact that Chopin heard the E minor key in this bar (and subsequent) is revealed by the lack of category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources |
|||||||||
|
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The slurs in FE (→GE,EE) are broken, yet according to us, it is probably an inaccuracy in the reproduction of Chopin's intention – in FE bar 30 opens a new line of the text, which, on a number of occasions, led to errors and inaccuracies in the notation of slurs. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||
|
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The accents in bar 29 are clearly longer in #A than in bars 27-28 and 30. In GE1 (→GE1a), such longer accents were used in both discussed bars. The erroneous reproduction of the short accents of the autograph as long would not take place at all and it seems unlikely that Chopin would have liked to differentiate between the accents in these two bars. Taking into account the above, in the main text we give eight long accents. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
2, then he moved the note head one second up. The result of the correction is not entirely clear, as the accidental before the note became an illegible inkblot. 
lowering g
of g
