|
b. 58-59
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 61-68
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
Nothing indicates that the detailed fingering of the R.H., added in EE2 (→EE3), could have come from Chopin. The digit for the 4th quaver in bar 64 is certainly erroneous; the double fingering for the 3rd quaver in bar 63 can also be a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
It is difficult to decide how the difference in the rhythmic value of the e note occurred. The minim in FE can be the last element of separation of the bottom voice in the R.H. in bars 58-60 and due to this fact, we give it in the main text. However, one cannot entirely exclude an error of the engraver who could have relied on the minim note heads of the L.H. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 66-67
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
The broken slur in EE is probably a result of a kind of misunderstanding at the time of interpreting the manuscript by the copyist or the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 69-72
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
Chopin added the cresc. indication in FC and in the base text to EE. In the main text, we give the range of the indication on the basis of FC. Leading the dashes to category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
in bar 73, which was done in 
sign (such juxtapositions are sometimes to be found in Chopin's works, yet only when there are at least two independent lines or sound planes).