Issues : fz – f
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we suggest an indication composed of the elements whose authenticity seems to be most plausible: written by Chopin's hand in AI and , which is a natural starting point for cresc. in FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f |
||||||
b. 16-18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The error of FE (→GE,EE) in bar 16 is undeniable:
In all the aforementioned bars AI has only accents, without additional indications. Cf. bars 20-22. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f |
||||||
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
in FE (→GE,EE) is clearly the engraver's mistake here. It is revealed by in the analogous situation in the previous bar and by a number of other obvious examples of distortion of this mark (see, e.g., the note to bars 16-18). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f |
||||||
b. 34
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
, uncommon in Chopin's autographs, is probably erroneous. Out of a few possible conjectures – , , , – we suggest , which, according to us, corresponds best to the context between cresc. and . Cf. bars 1 and 16. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f |
||||||
b. 54
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
A possible error of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE) is indicated by the repeated just at the beginning of bar 55. A number of other examples of omission of the letter 'z' in makes this error highly likely. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f |