Slurs
|
b. 34-35
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||
|
b. 35-36
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The slurs written in AI in the part of the R.H. most probably concern also the semiquavers in the L.H., which, in FE (→GE,EE) was explicitly marked. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In this case, the missing slur seems to be an inaccuracy of the notation of AI and FE (→EE2) – cf. the analogous slur in bars 34-35. The notation of bar 38 shows a number of possible potential inaccuracies of FE in the indications of dynamic nature (cf. the notes on the category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 39-44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
AI has in these bars only first two slurs in the R.H. in bar 44. The slurring of FE (→GE1→GE1a) is much more complete, yet also in these editions several slurs, which could be expected in the comparison of analogous fragments, are missing. In EE – and to a lesser extent – in the subsequent GE the slurs were gradually completed. According to us, all defects seem like an inaccuracy of notation, hence in the main text we suggest to generalise the slurs of FE in each analogous places, which was already applied in EE3 (→EE4). category imprint: Differences between sources |
