mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 17

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

No slur in CLI & FE (→EE2)

Slur in Ap, FEcor & GE

Slur in EE3 (→EE4)
..

The slur over the chords is in Ap, Chopin wrote it also in FEcor, however in finished FE (→EE) the sign was omitted, probably due to an overlap of a few Chopin's entries in this place. It is unclear how the slur appeared in GE; probably it is an accurate revision of the editor, e.g., on the basis of comparison with bar 44 (see also the remark in the next bar). In EE3 (→EE4) the slur was added under the chords, which is certainly an arbitrary revision. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 19-20

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

..

In none of the authentic sources the notation of the accidentals in the part of the R.H. is entirely correct in these bars – particularly in bar 19. However, the inaccuracies do not pose problems in establishing the correct text. Moreover, in all sources except for Ap the unnecessary  before f2, the 14th semiquaver in bar 20, is repeated. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of CLI

b. 25-26

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

No fingering in CLI & Ap

Double fingering in FEcor (interpretation)

Fingering in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

In FEcor, apart from the '1' digit over the last e2 in bar 25 and '2-5' for the g2-e3 sixth at the beginning of bar 26, Chopin also wrote two '4' digits. The digits were not included in FE (→GE,EE), which may have stemmed from a misunderstanding. According to us, Chopin wanted to indicate an alternative fingering in this way, which we suggest in this form in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 26

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

..

In CLI and FE (→EE) there is no  returning e2 on the 12th semiquaver. This version, with repeated e2, although acceptable from the musical point of view, is however certainly a mistake, which is proved by the  before the next e2, which is legitimate only when the discussed note sounds as e2. The correct text can be found in Ap and GE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors of CLI

b. 27

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

..

In CLI and FEcor there are no accidentals before the fourth in the lower voice, which is certainly a mistake.
CLI and FE (→GE1→GE2→GE4,→EE) have an unnecessary  before b2 in this place.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of CLI