mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 4

composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

Probable  in Ap

Possible long accent in Ap

 in FE (→GE,EE) 

Our alternate suggestion
..

The  mark in FE (→GE,EE) is one of a few that had already been printed in FEcor. Therefore, its compliance with Chopin's intention is not certain due to the possibility of reversing the direction of the sign as a result of the engraver's error (cf., e.g., the Etude in C minor, No. 12, bar 53). Such an error seems to be possible if we take into consideration the four-bar section which ends here and the recurring first phrase with its crescendo and a possible  in Ap.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Sign reversal

b. 4

composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

 & accent in Ap

Accent in FE (→GE,EE) 

Our suggestion
..

The accent visible in FE (→GE,EE) should be rather interpreted as a short one, yet in FE even shorter signs were used, e.g., in the Etude in C major, No. 1, bars 1-2. Also the sign put in Ap (next to ) resembles more an ordinary short accent. However, the long accents written by Chopin in FEcor in analogous bars 12 and 39 clearly indicate Chopin's intention concerning the type of accent he wanted to use.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 4

composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

b not tied in CLI & FE (→EE2→EE3)

b tied in Ap, GE & EE4
..

The authenticity of the b note's hold is undoubtedly certified only in Ap (only in this bar – cf. bars 12 and 39). The ties featured in a part of the first editions are either possibly (GE) or certainly (EE3, probably under the influence of GE) a revision. Arbitrarily added, allegedly missing ties in the places in which not all components of two-note chords or chords are held with ties are to be found in first editions of Chopin's pieces on a number of occasions. To the main text we adopt the undoubtedly authentic version of FE (→EE2→EE3). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 4

composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

..

Here, as well as in bar 12, yet not in bar 39, Chopin deleted semiquaver flags for the d1-a1 tritone in the lower voice in FEcor, thus changing its rhythmic value for a crotchet. However, the correction was not included in FE (→GE,EE), despite the fact that the cancellation of those changes was not explicitly marked:

  • in bar 4, next to the clearly deleted flags, there is a semiquaver-like sign, which may possibly be interpreted as a signal to return the flags; 
  • in bar 12 the flags' deletion was left without a commentary, yet in the margin a remark was deleted – not entirely legible – which probably concerned deletion of those flags.

It can be observed that the initial and, as it turned out, the final concept of the homogenous part of the R.H. in terms of sound and pianistics was subject to internal verification by Chopin until the very end of the Etude's publication process. See bars 3-4. 

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Chopin's hesitations

b. 4

composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

f in CLI

f in Ap & FE (→GE,EE) 
..

Chopin took the decision to lower the fifth already at the stage of preparing the base text for FE. Ap also has the final version with f. Similarly in analogous bars 12 and 39.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Accompaniment changes