mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 1-5

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

 in Ap

cresc. in FEcor (in bars 5-6 cresc. - - -)

cresc. in FE (→GE,EE)

Our suggestion
..

Chopin wrote the cresc. indications in bars 1 and 5 in FEcor, at the second time he also wrote the dashes determining the scope of the dynamic change (similarly in bar 9). The dashes were, however, not included in FE (→GE,EE). It is most probably an oversight, quite often in first editions of Chopin's works (cf., e.g., the Impromptu in A major, Op. 29, bars 21-22 or the Mazurka in B minor, Op. 24 No. 4, bars 47-49). In Ap in both places there are  hairpins, which can be considered as an alternative dynamic marking.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 8

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

Long accent in Ap & FEcor

 &  in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

In the main text, according to the entries written by Chopin himself in FEcor and Ap, we give the long accent mark over the 2nd crotchet in the L.H. In FE (→GE,EE) it was given a form of a  hairpin on the 1st beat of the bar, which totally changed its meaning. In the next proofreading Chopin brought back the stress on the E-e octave by adding  this time. According to us, it was an ad hoc intervention, forced with an erroneous interpretation of the intended by Chopin accent's mark, which is more compatible with the whole of dynamic markings of the Etude (a comparison of Ap with the final version shows that while preparing the Etude for printing, Chopin made a careful selection of the marks; he would often discard  marks, among others; cf., e.g., bar 4).  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 9-10

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

  in Ap

cresc. - - - in FEcor

cresc. in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

The   pair of signs in Ap may be considered as an alternative to cresc. - - - in FEcor. In the finished version of FE (→GE,EE) the dashes limiting the range of the dynamic scope were omitted.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 12

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

Long accent in Ap & FEcor

 in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

In the main text we give a long accent on the basis of Ap and a handwritten Chopin's entry in FEcor. The engraver of FE (→GE,EE) totally misunderstood Chopin's sign, reproducing it as  for the entire 2nd beat of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 17

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

Probable long accent in Ap

Possible  in Ap

Long accent in FEcor

 in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

The undeniable long accent, written by Chopin in FEcor, was reproduced in FE (→GE,EE) as  hairpins. The sign in Ap, as many others in this manuscript, may be interpreted as a long accent or hairpins. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE