mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 1-4

composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor

Four slurs in A

Two slurs in FE (→EE2)

Two slurs in GE1

Three slurs in GE2 (→GE3)

Three slurs in GE4 (→GE5)

Three slurs in EE3 (→EE4)
..

Each of four slurs in the L.H. written in A embraces the entire bar, despite the fact that due to the inconvenient graphic layout, the notation is not always precise. In FE (→EE2) only two out of them were recreated, in bars 2-3. Similarly in GE1, in which the slur in bar 3 is led only to the penultimate note, a (this inaccuracy was corrected only in GE4 and GE5). In later GE and EE a slur was added in bar 1. In the main text we give all slurs of A, as an intentional omission of some of them in FE is highly unlikely. Cf. bars 9-10.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major

Long accent in AI

  in A (→GE1→GE1a)

  in FE

  in EE

  in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The long accent under f2 at the beginning of bar 2 in #AW is the original concept of dynamic markings in these bars. In A one can see that Chopin rejected the accent (placed above this note) in favour of a pair of   hairpins. The hairpins were incorrectly reproduced in GE1 (→GE1a), yet only the fact of beginning diminuendo in GE2 (→GE3) from the beginning of bar 2 may be considered as a quite significant change. In FE and EE, diminuendo immediately follows crescendo. In the main text we reproduce the signs of A, the only ones written undoubtedly by Chopin's hand.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Deletions in A

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 4, Etude in A minor

in A (→FC), EE & GE2 (→GE3)

in FE & GE1
..

The use of  time signature is not surprising only in GE1, as FE does not use the  indication in the Etudes – contrary to the manuscripts – at all, neither in Op. 10 nor in the Etude in F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1 (cf. also the Impromptu in A major, Op. 29). In any case, the correctness and authenticity of the  time signature does not raise any doubts thanks to A (→FC). The correct time signature was returned in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Changes of metre , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor

in FC, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

in FE & GE1
..

The use of  time signature surprises only in GE1, as FE did not use the  indication in the Etudes – contrary to the manuscripts – even once, neither in Op. 25 nor in Op. 10 and the Etude in F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1 (cf. also the Impromptu in A major, Op. 29). In any case, the correctness and authenticity of the  time signature is undeniable with respect to the compatible version of FC and EE. The correct time signature was returned in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Changes of metre , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

in GC, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

in FE & GE1
..

The use of the  time signature is surprising only in GE1, as FE did not use the  indication in the Etudes – contrary to the manuscripts – even once, neither in Op. 25 nor in Op. 10 and in the Etude in F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1 (cf. also the Impromptu in A major, Op. 29). Anyways, the correctness and authenticity of the  time signature is undeniable with respect to the compatible version of GC and EE.
The correct time signature returned in GE2 (→GE3).
Similarly in bar 104. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Changes of metre , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , 4/4 or 2/2