![](/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 : EE revisions
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
The missing c1 note in FE – provided that it is not an error of the engraver – seems to be the original version, cf. bar 47. Lack of traces of its deletion reduces the likelihood of removing this note by Chopin almost to none. The note was removed – under the influence of FE – in EE2, in order to be reintroduced in EE3, this time on the basis of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||
b. 46
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
Before the 5th, 15th, 19th and 23rd semiquaver in GC (→GE1) and FE there is no accidental, so all of them should be interpreted as a2. In the 2nd half of the bar it is certainly erroneous, which induced the reviser of GE2 (→GE3) to consider the whole bar as an example of overlooking the sign of the current key and adding a
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals |
|||
b. 48
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
The natural returning e2 is present only in GE and EE3. There is no doubt that we are dealing with Chopin's oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions |
|||
b. 49
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
It is hard to say how the situation, in which category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections in GC |
|||
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor
..
In GC, FE and EE1 (→EE2) there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of GC |