|
b. 33
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The Chopin corrections visible in GC allow to state that the additional quaver of the accompaniment in EE is the original version, left in the base text to this edition most probably by inattention. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections in GC |
||||||||
|
b. 34
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
Due to the changes, to which the accompanying part of the R.H. was subject – added ties by Chopin – in the main text we suggest an equal, simpler notation. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The arpeggio in GC was added most probably by Chopin (cf. the arpeggios written with the hand of a copyist in the Etude in A minor, No. 11, bar 53-54). Therefore, lack of the sign in FE is probably a result of the composer's inattention. The sustention of the chord marked in FES, compatible with Chopin's tendency to eliminate the strokes of the accompanying part together with the sounds of the top voice (cf. the note to bar 30), may be considered as an equal variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic corrections in GC |
||||||||
|
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The missing category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 37
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The grace note added in FED is placed inaccurately, so that one does not know whether it is a or g (or g category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
in 
). In face of such a significant doubt, we do not include this addition in the main text, particularly due to the fact that the most likely interpretation of the grace note – as a – indicates a way of beginning the trill compatible with the classical rule, which Chopin generally used, hence not requiring an additional marking.