Issues : GE revisions
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of GC |
|||||
b. 80-81
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
The missing slur in GE1 is undoubtedly a mistake – it may be that the engraver could not decide how to recreate the ambiguous slur of GC (see bars 79-80) and eventually forgot about this troublesome sign. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||
b. 85-86
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
In GC there is no raising d1 to d1, which is a patent oversight, corrected in GE. In GC and GE2 (→GE3) there are unnecessary sharps in these bars: in GC before d2 at the beginning of the 3rd and 4th groups of semiquavers in bar 86, while in GE2 (→GE3) before d in the 2nd group in bar 85. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Errors of GC |
|||||
b. 87
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
|||||
b. 95
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
In GC, due to the too early beginning of the octave sign, used to write the final fragment of the part of the passage in the R.H., two notes – f2 and g2 – are written one octave higher than it results from the logic of the musical course. GE1 not only did leave the mistake, but it embraced one note more (e2) with the octave sign. The correct text was introduced only in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of GC |