|
b. 44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The accent was added by Chopin in a later proofreading of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
|
b. 44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The slurs in Ap correspond with three accents in analogous bar 17. Same as before, Chopin eventually waived separating the motifs in this place. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
|
b. 44
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In CLI there are no naturals returning c2 and e2, nor the sharp raising g1 to g category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of CLI |
|||||
|
b. 44-45
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The slur over the chords on the 2nd and 3rd beats of bar 44 was added by Chopin in FEcor (→FE→GE); it is also in Ap. In EE2 the sign was overlooked, which was more than compensated in EE3 (→EE4), adding also a slur combining the fifth at the end of bar 44 with the octave at the beginning of bar 45. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
|||||
|
b. 45-46
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The crotchets in the lower voice of the R.H., falling on the last beat of these bars in Ap, constitute a sharp articulation contrast in relation to the remaining semiquaver two-note chords, additionally underlined with accents. In the main text we give the homogenous, as far as the sound is concerned, version of FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Chopin's hesitations , Accompaniment changes |
1. The second of these mistakes – lack of the 
before e2 – remained unnoticed also in 
