|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
In AT, AW and CDP, there is no cautionary flat before the 4th crotchet (b category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Cautionary accidentals |
|||||
|
b. 1-14
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
Nothing indicates a possible, even partial authenticity of the fingering added in EE2 (→EE3). Therefore, differently than in the Etudes, Op. 10, in which the author of the fingering was Chopin's friend, Julian Fontana, we give them in italics in a smaller font. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
In AW bars 20-36 are marked as repetition of bars 1-17:
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
|
b. 1-14
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
In AT the Etude is written in 2/4 time signature, in two times smaller values – semiquaver triplets in the R.H. and quaver triplets in the L.H. It is the original concept, abandoned by Chopin not later than at the time of writing AW. The triplets of the L.H. do not have slurs in AT, which was probably related to the fact that the triplet grouping of the quavers unambiguously results from their beams. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Changes of metre |
|||||
|
b. 1-14
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
The slurs in the L.H. appeared in the notation of the Etude together with the transition to two times bigger rhythmic values – in AT, where the part of the L.H. is written with quaver triplets, there are no slurs. However, the consistency with which Chopin wrote them throughout the entire piece may mean that their function probably exceeds the indication of a rhythmic grouping, suggesting also the legato articulation. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
). It may mean that Chopin added the sign in [A], at the time of preparing the Etude for print, shortly before giving [A] for copying. 
