Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 51
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
In this bar, due to the change of harmony on the 3rd beat of the bar, the issue of sustaining the d category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||
|
b. 53-55
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
Nothing indicates that the fingering in the L.H. added in EE2 (→EE3) in bars 53 and 55 could have come from Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
|
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. 73
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
The version of EE2 (→EE3), in which the 1st triplet of the R.H. is written one octave higher than in the remaining sources is certainly an arbitrary revision. Its aim was certainly to avoid the leap between the 1st and 2nd triplet of the R.H., which can be considered to be pianistically justified, yet not as far as the sound is concerned. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
minim to the end of the bar has a crucial practical meaning. Therefore, the version of 
