Op. 2, Variations in B♭ major
Op. 10, 12 Etudes
Op. 11, Concerto in E minor
Op. 21, Concerto in F minor
Op. 22, Polonaise in E♭ major
Op. 24, 4 Mazurkas
Op. 25, 12 Etudes
Op. 26, 2 Polonaises
Op. 27, 2 Nocturnes
Op. 28, 24 Preludes
Op. 30, 4 Mazurkas
Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor
Op. 50, 3 Mazurkas
Op. 63, 3 Mazurkas
Op. 64, 3 Waltzes
Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
In AI the semiquavers of the bottom voice in the R.H. are marked in the 2nd half of bar 58 as repetition of the 1st half. The continuation of this part in the next bar is not marked at all, which is certainly an inaccuracy of notation. However, it is not entirely clear how this continuation was supposed to look like in Chopin's intention, as one can imagine a slightly different addition to the versions of the top voice of the R.H. written out with notes (on the top stave) than the one that was included in the final version, e.g. f
-b-f-b in the 2nd half of the bar (a missing notation is not always the same as an obvious continuation – cf. the Etude in F minor, No. 9, bars 49-50). However, we assume that while finishing works on this fragment in AI, Chopin imagined the entire part of the R.H. in the final version.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information
issues: Abbreviated notation of A
notation: Shorthand & other
