Issues : EE revisions
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||||
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In EE2 (→EE3) the fingering was developed in accordance with the scheme valid in the entire Etude. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||
b. 29-32
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In these bars, placing the accents at the beginning of the passages between the notes is impeded, as it would be necessary for them to be placed in the area of ledger lines, which would hinder the legibility of the text. In FC and FE, which most probably faithfully convey the notation of [A], such notation is to be seen only in bars 29 and 32, Chopin placed the remaining accents over the notes. The latter was adopted in GE and EE2 in all the discussed bars, whereas in EE1 (→EE2) in four out of the five cases. In the main text, in order to underline that the accents refer to the notes performed by the both hands, we suggest double accents (cf. bars 13-14). The notation could have been used by Chopin in bar 46. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||||
b. 41-42
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
All source notations certainly mean the same – an accent referring to both notes struck in the middle of the bar. In the main text we adopt the version with two accents – see bars 13-14. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||||
b. 46
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
GE1 added a cautionary before the 9th semiquaver in the L.H. The unnecessary sign was removed in GE2 (→GE3), yet repeated in EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »