![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
b. 35-36
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
In the main text, we give the most accurate pedalling of FE, probably added in the proofreading of this edition. At the end of bar 36, we add the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
b. 72-76
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
Lack of visible traces of corrections in the sources impedes to determine how the differences in the slurring of this four-bar section occurred. However, most probably all three ways of slurring are authentic:
In the main text, we give the slurring of the base source, i.e. FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
b. 92
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
In FC and FE there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||
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 category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |