Issues : Errors in EE
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor
..
In GC, FE and EE there are no accidentals before the 9th quaver, so it is not entirely clear whether it is to be read as e-e1-e2-e3 or e-e1-e2-e3. The comparison with the previous bar indicates a typical for Chopin oversight of naturals returning e and e2. GE1, however, added the raising e3 to e3, which is certainly a mistake (yet it was repeated in EE3). The correctly written text is featured only in GE2 (→GE3). In EE1 the top note of the part of the R.H. is mistakenly written as d3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of GC |
|||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor
..
The authenticity of the version of EE cannot be excluded, yet, according to us, a mistake is more likely here, e.g., due to the similarity of the 2nd half of the bar to bar 34. Chopin resigned from striking b in similar places only when the note was being performed by the L.H. (bars 34, 42 and analog.) or when the 1st finger of the R.H. remained on the d1 crotchet ending the phrase of the middle voice of the R.H. (bars 60 and 80). The preserved in EE 4th finger over this quaver also provides an argument for a mistake – a single b1 note is easier to be performed with the 2nd finger. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||
b. 113
|
composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor
..
In GC (→GE1) and EE, there are no accidentals before the crotchets, so they should read as c and c2. In spite of the fact that the version does not raise any doubts as far as the sound is concerned, the omission of the naturals is proved by:
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of GC |