Issues : EE inaccuracies
b. 9-11
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The hairpins of AI, leading to in bar 11, is an earlier concept of dynamic indications. In the main text we stick to the version of FE, reproduced with minor inaccuracies also in GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
b. 17-18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The slur in bar 17, despite that in AI it starts only from the 3rd semiquaver, is certainly to be understood as a whole-bar slur. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The differences of the length of the sign are certainly non-authentic and probably originate from extra-musical reasons. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
b. 23-24
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In bars 21-26 the dynamic signs were not marked in AI. In bars 23-24, FE (→EE) has two separate signs, the second out of which (in bar 24) was, however, not included in GE, which can mean that Chopin added it in the last proofreading of FE. According to us, the melodically homogeneous context suggests that in bar 24 is to be understood as continuation of the previous one. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Hairpins denoting continuation |
|||||||||||||
b. 27-28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor
..
In AI there are no articulation and phrasing slurs until bar 34. The broken slur of EE is probably a result of routine interpretation of the notation of FE (→GE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies |