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
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 4

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

..

Here, as well as in bar 12, yet not in bar 39, Chopin deleted semiquaver flags for the d1-a1 tritone in the lower voice in FEcor, thus changing its rhythmic value for a crotchet. However, the correction was not included in FE (→GE,EE), despite the fact that the cancellation of those changes was not explicitly marked:

  • in bar 4, next to the clearly deleted flags, there is a semiquaver-like sign, which may possibly be interpreted as a signal to return the flags; 
  • in bar 12 the flags' deletion was left without a commentary, yet in the margin a remark was deleted – not entirely legible – which probably concerned deletion of those flags.

It can be observed that the initial and, as it turned out, the final concept of the homogenous part of the R.H. in terms of sound and pianistics was subject to internal verification by Chopin until the very end of the Etude's publication process. See bars 3-4. 

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Chopin's hesitations

b. 4

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

f in CLI

f in Ap & FE (→GE,EE) 
..

Chopin took the decision to lower the fifth already at the stage of preparing the base text for FE. Ap also has the final version with f. Similarly in analogous bars 12 and 39.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Accompaniment changes

b. 4

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

..

In CLI and EE2 the  returning d1 on the 4th beat of the bar was deleted, which is a patent error. In CLI there is a superfluous  before g1 in this chord, which shows that Chopin did not include in the notation the previous alterations in this bar at all. Similarly in bar 12. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of CLI

b. 4

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

..

In the main text we do not consider  written in Ap, as in comparison with this manuscript, Chopin significantly reduced the number of dynamic markings in the version prepared for printing.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 4

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

..

In one of later proofreadings of FE (→GE,EE), Chopin added the slur combining f and e (it is absent in FEcor). Similarly in bars 12 and 39. In Ap the slur is present only in bar 4.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE