Pitch
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The different version of CLI is one of two examples of the melodic line's change in this Etude at the time of refining the piece. Ap has the final version, which was also written in the base text for FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Accompaniment changes , Main-line changes |
||||||
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
We add cautionary naturals before the G-g octave. The addition was also made in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) and EE4. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
This is the second of the places in which Chopin changed the melodic line of the Etude (cf. bar 28). The final version is present in Ap, it was also already written in the base text for FE. In one of the last proofreadings of FE (→EE) a cautionary was added before the 14th semiquaver a1. In this context the sign seems to be totally unnecessary. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes |
||||||
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The semibreve in CLI is undoubtedly the original version. In the final version Chopin enriched the sound and made the rhythm more robust. In Ap before the lower note of the first octave is missing. In Ap and FE there is no lowering e1 to e1 on the 2nd beat of the bar. This patent inaccuracy was corrected in GE and EE. In GE3 and EE4 an unnecessary before the 2nd e is also added. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Accompaniment changes |
||||||
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |