b. 44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The single crotchet in CLI is undoubtedly the original version. In Ap and FE (→GE,EE) Chopin took the decision to insert a quaver octave here (in analogous bar 17 a single D was left), which may have been related to an increased sound volume in the last section of the Etude. Cf. a further remark in this bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Accompaniment changes |
||||||||
b. 44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The version of CLI without the Neapolitan chord was changed by Chopin in Ap, yet not in the base text for FE (differently as in analogous bar 17). Only in FEcor Chopin added the flats lowering b to b and b1 to b1, yet both accidentals were put on the 2nd beat of the bar, as if b1 was still supposed to be in the 1st chord. It was probably a mistake, as in one of the subsequent proofreadings Chopin added a also at the beginning of the bar (the unnecessary on the 2nd beat of the bar was removed only in GE3 and subsequent GE,s). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Accompaniment changes |
||||||||
b. 44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The single e crotchet in Ap is probably a later version than the e-h fifth in CLI. However, Chopin conserved the fifth in the base text for FE and confirmed his decision by adding in FEcor a returning b in this place. See a previous remark in this bar. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Chopin's hesitations , Accompaniment changes |
||||||||
b. 44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
Same as in analogous bar 17, the value of a quaver in Ap is a variant present only in this manuscript. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Chopin's hesitations |
||||||||
b. 44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
According to us, the mark written by Chopin in FEcor is a long accent, same as in analogous bar 17. An unequivocal long accent is also in Ap. In FE (→GE1→GE2) the mark was interpreted as hairpins, which, in this case, cannot be considered as an inaccuracy. In EE2 and GE3 (→GE4→GE5) the sign was omitted, whereas in EE3 (→EE4) a long (!?) accent was added. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |