b. 81-82
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
Both lack of the sign in FE and its independence from in EE is, according to us, an inaccuracy of notation (extension of the hairpins in EE could have resulted from, e.g., an inaccurate interpretation of this sign in the context of the abbreviation of notation used in the base text). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
b. 81-83
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
According to us, only the slurs of GE1 are certainly erroneous. The remaining two versions can be considered to be equal, whereas to the main text we adopt the slur of the base source (FC), confirmed in EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 81-83
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The pedalling of EE is probably authentic, which is proved by, i.a., the characteristic sustention of pedal at the transition between bars 82 and 83. It is only the sign at the end of the piece that raises doubts, often routinely added by the editors (e.g., GE2 and GE3). In the main text, we give the probably later indication, transmitted accordingly by FC (→GE1) and FE. Cf. the pedalling in bars 77-80. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 83
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The missing bottom C1 in EE1 is most probably a mistake, corrected in EE2 (→EE3), perhaps on the basis of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Abbreviated octaves' notation |