b. 25-26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The clearly long accents, written by Chopin in FEcor, were recreated in FE (→GE,EE) as short ones. Ap has even characteristic marks before the accents, which are typical for this autograph. In the version for printing Chopin did not use any of them. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||
b. 25-26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The hairpins added in one of the later proofreadings of FE (→GE) should be, according to us, interpreted as diminuendo (in pair with the sign in the previous bar). However, it must be said that FE also reproduces a few unequivocal long accents in a similar way. This is exactly how the sign was understood in EE and, moreover, in EE3 (→EE4) a similar accent was arbitrarily added in analogous place in bar 26. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
b. 25-28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In the main text we give three staccato dots, at the beginning of bars 25-27, written by Chopin in FEcor. In finished FE (→GE,EE) only the dot in bar 26 was printed. Ap displays a richer set of staccato markings. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Wedges |
|||||||||
b. 25-26
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The slurs of Ap belong to this kind of indications that, according to us, combine well with the markings of the version for printing. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
b. 25
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
It is hard to determine Chopin's motivation at the time when he was writing the e-e1 octave in Ap as a quaver. In the version for printing he returned to the original value of a crotchet. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Chopin's hesitations |