data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
The use of time signature is not surprising only in GE1, as FE does not use the
indication in the Etudes – contrary to the manuscripts – at all, neither in Op. 10 nor in the Etude in F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1 (cf. also the Impromptu in A
major, Op. 29). In any case, the correctness and authenticity of the
time signature does not raise any doubts thanks to A (→FC). The correct time signature was returned in GE2 (→GE3).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Changes of metre, Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccuracies in FE, GE revisions, 4/4 or 2/2
notation: Rhythm