Issues : Authentic corrections of FE
|
b. 17
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The crotchet in CLI is the original version (as in the previous bar). In this case Chopin shortened it to a quaver with rest both in Ap and FEcor (in FE1 only a rest was mistakenly added). category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 17
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
Our proposal (long accent) constitutes a resultant of undeniable elements of two sources including independently written indications in this place – Ap and FE (→GE,EE). We do not consider category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In the main text we give the staccato dots written by Chopin in FEcor. The dots were omitted in FE (→EE) and in GE both octaves were combined with a slur. The authenticity of the latter is unclear – seeing the previous slurs, the reviser of GE could have considered the lack of slur over the last pair of crotchets as an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In the main text we give the length-wise harmonised pair of category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 19-21
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In FEcor (FE→GE,EE) Chopin wrote the reminder about the upper voice's articulation twice – in bars 19 and 21. The hint in bar 19 is justified with the beginning of a new section of the piece, particularly in a situation when in bar 18 a group of semiquavers was embraced with a slur. In turn, the reason to repeat the indication in bar 21 was probably the beginning of a new page in FE, similarly as in bar 11. Cf. also the remark concerning dynamic markings. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
in 
in 
