mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of FE

b. 27-28

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

No markings in CLI & FE (→GE,EE) 

 and accents in Ap
..

 and the accents of Ap (also these on the 2nd beat of both bars) highlight the accentuation suggested by the slurs in the L.H., which are also present in FE (→GE,EE). It is unclear how significant the differences in the accents' size and placement of  marks are. We assume that the latter concern rather the L.H., which stems from the notation of bar 28, and we give the accents preserving the length difference. In FEcor one can see here a printed, yet deleted by Chopin,  mark. It may be a remnant of a possible  included in the handwritten base text. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 27

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

..

The sources prove Chopin's hesitation concerning the notation of the 3rd semiquaver on the 2nd and 3rd beats of the bar. It is best seen in Ap, in which the clear traces of corrections are visible in the 2nd group of the notes, and possible ones – in the 3rd one. In the case of the first of the corrections, a2, most probably, was changed to g2, however, in the photograph available to the editors of mUltimate Chopin, one cannot certainly determine the direction of the changes. The result of the possible second correction is obvious – g2.
In the remaining sources the difference concerns only the 7th note, which in CLI is written as g2 and in FE (→GE,EE) – as a2. The hesitation was probably a result of the natural returning a2 in the 3rd group of semiquavers (added in one of the later proofings).  

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Enharmonic corrections , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 27-28

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

No indication in CLI & Ap

in FEcor

in FE (→GE,EE) 

Our suggestion
..

The range of cresc., despite having been written by Chopin in FEcor, is questionable. According to us, it goes further, until bar 29, in which there is a  mark, determining the local climax. What is characteristic is the fact that in Ap crescendo was not indicated, while in four places there are different types of accents, which were entirely omitted in FE (→GE,EE). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 28

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

No slur in CLI & Ap

Slur in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

The slur starting from the G-g octave was written by Chopin in FEcor, yet without determining the final point – in bar 29, which is already on a new line, there is no continuation of this slur. The ambiguity was carefully reproduced in FE (→EE2→EE3), while in GE (and EE4) a natural in this situation ending of the slur was added.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 29

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

 on first beat in Ap

 on second beat in FE (→GE,EE)  
..

According to us, the  mark, written by Chopin in FEcor before the accent on the 2nd beat of the bar, may in Chopin's intention embrace with its range also the beginning of the bar. Therefore,  present in this place in Ap may be considered as equal to the original version.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE