|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
Chopin wrote the chord as a semiquaver in CLI and as a quaver in Ap. In the published version he opted for a two-part writing, intermediary in a sense. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The wedge written in Ap is most probably a part of Chopin's quest for an accurate way of writing down this chord – cf. the adjacent remark. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Wedges |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 32-34
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The slurs in Ap, despite being inaccurate, clearly indicate two one-bar phrases and the beginning of a third one, probably longer. As in almost the entire Etude, Chopin did not use here the slurs in the version prepared for printing. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
Lack of a new dynamic indication after category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
Three accents written in Ap in bar 32 are undoubtedly short, if considering their shape. However, their position gives raise to doubts – the signs certainly do not exclusively refer to the upper voice, therefore, they fall on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th beat of the bar, where they probably concern the entire chords. However, if they concern the chords, such a position suggests their extended function, which corresponds to the definition of long accents (cf. bars 45-46). In the main text we give one category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE |
written in bar 30 probably means that in the version for printing Chopin envisaged piano dynamics also in this bar. 
in this bar seems to be contrary to the final concept of the Etude.
in 
