mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

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. 1

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

in CLI

in Ap

in FE1

in FE2

in GE1

GE1a (→GE2→GE3→GE4→GE5)

in EE2 (→EE3)

in EE4
..

In the main text we give the title and dedication in the undoubtedly authentic version adopted in FE. The extensions of both the title (in GE and EE) and the dedication (in EE) most probably come from the editors. See the Etude in C major, No. 1, bar 1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Dedications , GE revisions , Various titles

b. 1

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

in Ap

in FEcor

in FE (→GE1→GE2, →EE)

in GE3 (→GE4→GE5)
..

In the main text we give the tempo indications added by Chopin in subsequent proofs of FE (→GE1→GE2, →EE): Allegro already in FEcor, metronome tempo in the next one. In GE3 (→GE4→GE5) the metronome marking erroneously displays 114.
Different indications written in Ap may not have a universal value, as the Etude in this autograph differs quite significantly from the published version in terms of pianistics.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Changes of metre , Errors in GE , Metronome tempos , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 1

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

in CLI & Ap

in FE (→GE,EE)
..

We give the time signature marking after CLI and Ap. Although FE (→GE,EE) has , it is hard to assume that the change in time signature was done on purpose, if in FE the  marking was not used in the Etudes even once – contrary to the manuscripts – cf. Etudes in C minor, No. 4, F major, No. 8 and C minor, No. 12. The phenomenon appears also in other pieces, even in totally clear situations, e.g., in Etudes in F minor, Op. 25 No. 2, D major, Op. 25 No. 8 or F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1-5

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

 in Ap

cresc. in FEcor (in bars 5-6 cresc. - - -)

cresc. in FE (→GE,EE)

Our suggestion
..

Chopin wrote the cresc. indications in bars 1 and 5 in FEcor, at the second time he also wrote the dashes determining the scope of the dynamic change (similarly in bar 9). The dashes were, however, not included in FE (→GE,EE). It is most probably an oversight, quite often in first editions of Chopin's works (cf., e.g., the Impromptu in A major, Op. 29, bars 21-22 or the Mazurka in B minor, Op. 24 No. 4, bars 47-49). In Ap in both places there are  hairpins, which can be considered as an alternative dynamic marking.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 1-7

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

Dots in Ap

FE (→GE,EE) 
..

In the main text we give the staccato dots in the part of the L.H. after FE (→GE,EE). In Ap Chopin wrote them only in bars 1-2, 4 and 7. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE