mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 1

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

in CLI

in Ap

in FE1

in FE2

in GE1

GE1a (→GE2→GE3→GE4→GE5)

in EE2 (→EE3)

in EE4
..

In the main text we give the title and dedication in the undoubtedly authentic version adopted in FE. The extensions of both the title (in GE and EE) and the dedication (in EE) most probably come from the editors. See the Etude in C major, No. 1, bar 1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Dedications , GE revisions , Various titles

b. 1

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

in Ap

in FEcor

in FE (→GE1→GE2, →EE)

in GE3 (→GE4→GE5)
..

In the main text we give the tempo indications added by Chopin in subsequent proofs of FE (→GE1→GE2, →EE): Allegro already in FEcor, metronome tempo in the next one. In GE3 (→GE4→GE5) the metronome marking erroneously displays 114.
Different indications written in Ap may not have a universal value, as the Etude in this autograph differs quite significantly from the published version in terms of pianistics.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Changes of metre , Errors in GE , Metronome tempos , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 2

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

..

In the middle of the bar in FEcor there is no  raising c3 into c3. This obvious mistake was corrected by Chopin in one of the later proofreadings.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 4

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

No fingering in Ap

Fingering in FEcor

FE (→GE1→GE2, →EE) 

GE3

GE4

GE5
..

We give the alternative fingering on the basis of Chopin's entry in FEcor. In finished FE (→GE1→GE2,EE) those three digits were mistakenly put one semiquaver earlier. Repetition of the same error in EE is of particular surprise, as the fingering was revised and added by Fontana (cf. bar 12). Revisers of GE3, GE4 and GE5 tried to respectively simplify the fingering's notation and to make it more precise in this place; however, none of them realised the essence of the mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 4

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

Probable  in Ap

Possible long accent in Ap

 in FE (→GE,EE) 

Our alternate suggestion
..

The  mark in FE (→GE,EE) is one of a few that had already been printed in FEcor. Therefore, its compliance with Chopin's intention is not certain due to the possibility of reversing the direction of the sign as a result of the engraver's error (cf., e.g., the Etude in C minor, No. 12, bar 53). Such an error seems to be possible if we take into consideration the four-bar section which ends here and the recurring first phrase with its crescendo and a possible  in Ap.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Sign reversal