mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Verbal indications
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Verbal indications

b. 27-28

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

No markings in CLI & FE (→GE,EE) 

 and accents in Ap
..

 and the accents of Ap (also these on the 2nd beat of both bars) highlight the accentuation suggested by the slurs in the L.H., which are also present in FE (→GE,EE). It is unclear how significant the differences in the accents' size and placement of  marks are. We assume that the latter concern rather the L.H., which stems from the notation of bar 28, and we give the accents preserving the length difference. In FEcor one can see here a printed, yet deleted by Chopin,  mark. It may be a remnant of a possible  included in the handwritten base text. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 27-28

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

No indication in CLI & Ap

in FEcor

in FE (→GE,EE) 

Our suggestion
..

The range of cresc., despite having been written by Chopin in FEcor, is questionable. According to us, it goes further, until bar 29, in which there is a  mark, determining the local climax. What is characteristic is the fact that in Ap crescendo was not indicated, while in four places there are different types of accents, which were entirely omitted in FE (→GE,EE). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 29

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

 on first beat in Ap

 on second beat in FE (→GE,EE)  
..

According to us, the  mark, written by Chopin in FEcor before the accent on the 2nd beat of the bar, may in Chopin's intention embrace with its range also the beginning of the bar. Therefore,  present in this place in Ap may be considered as equal to the original version.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 30

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

No marking in CLI & Ap

 in FEcor, GE3 (→GE4→GE5) & EE4

 &  in FE (→GE1→GE2, →EE2→EE3)
..

was written by Chopin in FEcor, yet only the revisers of GE3 (→GE4→GE5) and EE4 placed both parts of the indication in a more or less correct way. In FE (→GE1→GE2, →EE2→EE3)  seems to concern the 2nd semiquaver, whereas  – only the 4th one. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 32

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

No marking in CLI & FE (→GE,EE) 

in Ap
..

Lack of a new dynamic indication after  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.

category imprint: Differences between sources