Rhythm
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
We give the time signature marking after AI, although theoretically, Chopin could have introduced in the lost [A]. According to us, it is, however, much more likely that it was an arbitrary change of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE), who did not use the marking in the Etudes – contrary to the manuscripts – even once, cf. the Etudes in C major, No. 1, F major, No. 8 and C minor, No. 12. The phenomenon is also present in other pieces, even in the most obvious cases, e.g., in the Etudes in F minor, Op. 25 No. 2, D major, Op. 25 No. 8 or F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , 4/4 or 2/2 |
|||||
b. 3-11
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The extensions of every second semiquaver of each fourth in bars 3, 7 and 11 are not marked in AI. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information |
|||||
b. 7-8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The chords with repeated d2 and d1 notes are undoubtedly an earlier version of this place. The corrections of AI suggest that originally the first pair of chords had also c2 notes on the 2nd beat and b1 on the 3rd beat, which excluded the hold (if the d2 notes were present in this version at all). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The bottom voice is not marked in AI, which must be considered as a feature of a still immature notation and perhaps also a performance concept. It can be indicated by other dynamic indications – cf. notes in bars 7 and 8. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||
b. 13-15
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
Plain minims in AI most probably represent inaccurate (simplified) notation of the ultimate version, and not a different version. Similarly in bars 63-66. category imprint: Differences between sources |