Issues : GE revisions
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »
b. 122-123
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
Looking at 5 accents over the chords of the L.H. in FC, it is not easy to determine which hand they concern. The accents are written with the copyist's hand, hence one can assume that it looked similar in the remaining Stichvorlage manuscripts. As a result, in FE and EE the accents were assigned to the R.H., whereas in GE1 (→GE2) – to the left one. According to us, the signs concern both the right and left hands, which, in a non-authentic, yet equal manner, was marked in GE3. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
b. 123-124
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
Interpretation of the slurs of the L.H. in FC poses a significant challenge due to the sign written over the slurs. According to us, it is more likely that the slurs are supposed to create one sign. The slurs of FE and GE2 (→GE3) can be considered an alternative interpretation of the notation of FC. The version of GE1 is certainly erroneous; the one of EE probably too. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||
b. 130-133
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
The long accent in bar 130 must have been included in [A], whereas the remaining were added by Chopin in FC and probably in the base text to EE. The added signs have a form of long accents and this is how they were recreated in EE and GE1. In later GE, they were changed to common, short accents. The signs in FC are placed more or less between the staves and they probably concern both hands. In FE, EE and GE1 they were placed under the R.H., whereas in GE2 (→GE3), another set of accents for the L.H. was added. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »