b. 29
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
In FC one can see that the lowering e1 to e1 in the 1st chord was moved from before the minim. Traces of correction, consisting in adding this in the 1st chord (which required moving the entire chord), are visible also in FE. Hence, the mistake was also probably in [A]. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
In FE and EE1 (→EE2) there are no flats lowering b2 to b2 in bar 29 and b1 to b1 in bar 30. In FC the inaccuracy appears only in bar 29. GE and EE3 include the correct text. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
Lack of ending of the slur in FC (→GE1) is probably an oversight of the copyist – in FC bar 29 is at the end of the line. The divided slur of EE may, however, mean that the slurring in the base text to this edition was unclear too. In the main text we give the undisputed slur of FE (same as in the previous, analogous phrase, the placement of the slur under the notes is certainly an arbitrary decision of the engraver). category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions , FE revisions , Errors of FC |
||||||
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |