b. 18
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
The missing accent and crotchet stem of the 5th semiquaver (e1) is almost certainly a result of the copyist's inattention in FC (→GE1). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
|||||||||||||||
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the main text we suggest a long accent on the basis of Chopin corrections in analogous bars. In an alternative proposal, the accent is placed over the stave, which can correspond to Chopin's latest decision. Similarly in bars 25 and 27. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||||||
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||||
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In the main text we give long accents, written most probably by Chopin in FC. In this copy, one can also see deletions of the previously written accents under the part of the L.H., which shows that the double accents of FE is a previous version. Lack of the signs in EE1 (→EE2) is certainly a mistake, corrected in EE3 on the basis of GE1. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||||||||||||
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |