Issues : EE inaccuracies
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »
|
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 |
|||||||||
|
b. 33-34
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In AI, the accents over the chords in these bars are undoubtedly long and this is the notation we adopt to the main text. FE has short accents (only the third one could be possibly considered as long), which seems to be less convincing, as far as the music is concerned, and probably results from an incomplete understanding of [A]. The accents in the remaining editions were subject to further modifications, most probably accidental. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||
|
b. 69-70
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The fact of beginning the slur from the 2nd group of semiquavers is almost certainly an inaccuracy of notation, which probably follows from [A]. Different versions of the slur's ending in EE and GE2 (→GE3) are certainly a result of the engravers' errors. The omission of the slur in GE4 (→GE5) may be considered as an oversight or revision. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »