Pitch
|
b. 15
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
In CLI the entire bar is written one octave lower. In the manuscripts also the adjacent bars are entirely written one octave lower, yet both bar 14 and 16 are included under an octave sign. Therefore, there is no doubt that bar 15 was also meant to be marked like that. The copyist must have totally lost it, as at the beginning of bar 15 he even wrote loco, with which an end of the octave sign was designated back then, while in bar 16 he started a new indication. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors of CLI |
|||||
|
b. 16-18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Chopin's hesitations , Accompaniment changes |
|||||
|
b. 17
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The version of CLI without the Neapolitan chord was changed by Chopin already in Ap and in the base text for FE (→GE,EE). Similarly in bar 44. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Accompaniment changes |
|||||
|
b. 17
|
composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor
..
The fifth in CLI is definitely the original version, rejected by Chopin both in Ap and FE (→GE,EE). However, in analogous bar 44 Chopin did not waive his original concept. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Accompaniment changes |
|||||
|
b. 17
|
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: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions |
1 & b
1. The second error – lack of the 
before e2 – remained unnoticed also in