![](/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 : Accompaniment changes
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »
b. 38-39
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The version of FE – the E minor chord twice – could have been introduced in the proofreading of FE and was accepted by Chopin during the lessons, which is proved by Chopin entries in FES and FED, performed in the direct neighbourhood of this place. We adopt it to the main text as the undoubtedly authentic and possibly the latest version. Its appearance in EE2 (→EE3) indicates the use of an FE copy while editing this impression (cf. the Etude in G
It is one of these places in which the later editorial and performance practice consolidated the non-authentic compilation of source editions with g category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The F category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections in GC |
|||||||||
b. 66
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The traces visible in FE prove that e1 was removed from the 1st quaver of the bar at the time of proofreading. There are no doubts that this kind of change could have been introduced only by Chopin. Thanks to this change the effect of withering echo – bars 65 and 66 are a simplified harmonic repetition of bar 64 – becomes clearer. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »