|
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
Lack of the slur in bar 30 in FE (→EE2,GE1→GE1a) must be regarded an inaccuracy, presumably an oversight of the engraver – slurs encompass remaining similar motives in the discussed bars. The lack of the 2nd slur in bar 29 in GE3 is undoubtedly an engraver's error. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 30-32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
|
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The fingering, added in EE by Fontana, corresponds to the rhythm of changes of the hand's position, indicated by Chopin for the L.H. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
|
b. 31-32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The type of accents written in AI under the semiquavers in the R.H. is not clear. Several clearly longer signs previously visible on this page of the manuscript allow to consider short accents to be more plausible. The accents in FE (→GE,EE) – separately for the L.H. and over the crotchets in the right hand – are short, yet, according to us, the mere fact of separating the accents may mean that Chopin wanted to differentiate between their quality. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
