|
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
In FC (→GE1) and EE, lack of the slur running from the last quaver of the bar allows for a supposition that in FE the slur was added by Chopin at the time of proofreading of this edition. The slur was also added in GE2 (→GE3), most probably after analogy with bars 40-41. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 21-22
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
These bars, being an exact repetition of bars 5-6, have no fingering in FC (→GE) and base text to EE (→EE1). It was most probably also the case of the base text to FE, as only at the time of proofreading this edition, Chopin added certain indications. They refer to the exact indications from bars 5-6 and 9-10, resembling less typical situations, related to the arrangement of two neighbouring white keys. Therefore, one can conclude that the composer considered the alternate use of 1-2 fingers (in the bottom voice) and 4-3 (in the top) to be typical for the successions of white and black keys, hence not requiring reminder. The fingering was repeated also in EE2 (→EE3). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 23-24
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
In FC, in both bars, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th groups of semiquavers are written in an abbreviated manner as repetition of the first. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Abbreviated notation of A |
|||||||||
|
b. 23-26
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
The Chopin fingering – marked after the same rules as in the previous four-bar section – was most probably added at the time of proofreading FE. Later, the indications of EE2 (→EE3) were completed on the basis of this edition. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 24-25
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
Different source slurring of these bars does not prove, according to us, various versions of phrasing, yet it only confirms difficulties with which one is faced at the time of interpreting slurs in Chopin autographs. In EE, the fact of embracing the entire discussed fragment with one slur, unconvincing from the piano and musical point of view, probably results from the panache, with which the slur was written in the manuscript (autograph or Gutmann's copy), which was supposed to start over the 2nd quaver in bar 25 – if its beginning falls already on the 1st quaver, the engraver could have assumed that it is about the link with the preceding D-G category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , EE inaccuracies |
slur. In turn, in