Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 36
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
Although Chopin at a certain stage – while correcting the base text to EE – most probably considered the version with f category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 45-48
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 49-57
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
In bars 49, 52-53, 55 and 57 GE added rests for the bottom voice of the L.H., which was repeated in EE3. Generally, Chopin would not complicate the notation with such rests, which in piano music are not necessary for an unambiguous interpretation of the text. See also bars 50 and 51. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 49-52
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
The E minim is not extended with a dot in any of the sources. In analogous bar 86 one of the sources – FE – features a dotted minim, so one can ponder which of the values is correct. If we were to consider the authentic pedalling, ensuring that the note sounds throughout the entire bar, it would turn out that the choice of a rhythmic value is of the ideational meaning only. Therefore, we do not intervene in the source text and we adopt this version in the main text also in bar 86. In GE, the allegedly missing rhythmic value of the bottom voice was arbitrarily completed with a crotchet rest (cf. bars 49-57). The addition was repeated in EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
in 
