![](/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 : 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
In GC and GE2 (→GE3) there are unnecessary sharps in these bars: in GC before d 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 – f category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of GC |