mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 29

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

No marks in CLI & FE (→GE,EE) 

Accents in Ap
..

In the main text we do not consider the accents of Ap, as in the version prepared for printing Chopin avoided overloading the text of the Etude with detailed indications.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 31

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

  &  in Ap

Accents in FEcor

 in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

In the main text we give long accents written by Chopin in FEcor. Both signs were clearly distorted in finished FE (→GE,EE).
Ap has – as in the previous bar – meticulously marked   waves and  in the L.H. in this place. We do not consider these indications in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 32

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

Accents in Ap, literal reading

Accents in Ap, probable interpretation

Accents in Ap, possible interpretation

 in FEcor

 in FE (→GE)

 in EE
..

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  written by Chopin – as in two following bars – in FEcor. In finished FE (→GE) and EE the sign was reproduced inaccurately. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 38

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

No mark in CLI & FE (→GE,EE) 

Probable accent in Ap

Possible long accent in Ap

Possible  in Ap
..

The sign in Ap may be, according to us, interpreted as an accent (short?) or . All three signs of this type in bars 38-39 look like short accents, yet only the one in the L.H. in bar 39 is clearly put under the note it concerns. In the main text we do not consider this ambiguous sign. Similarly in bar 39.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 39

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

No mark in CLI & FE (→GE,EE2) 

Probable accent in Ap

Possible long accent in Ap

Possible  in Ap

 in EE3 (→EE4)
..

The mark in Ap may be, according to us, interpreted as an accent (short or long?) or . Similarly as in bar 38, in the main text we do not consider this ambiguous mark. The hairpin  was arbitrarily added in EE3 (→EE4), certainly after bar 4.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions