mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 1

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

in A

in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

In the main text we give the suggestive and explicit vertical accent of A. It is hard to determine whether substituting it in FE (→GE,EE) with a common accent was a result of Chopin's intervention or of the engraver's inaccuracy.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 1

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

in A

in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

The  indication in A is not legible enough and it could have been misunderstood by the engraver. In spite of this, in the main text we give  included in FE (→GE,EE), as the performance indications in FE were undoubtedly controlled by Chopin and even if he did not correct this indication, he certainly had an opportunity to accept it.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , fz – f

b. 1

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

 in A

 in FE (→GE,EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

In the version for publication the dynamics of the Etude remains undefined until bar 26. Although Chopin could have accepted this state of affairs, it seems right to give the hint written in A (in a variant form) in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , No initial dynamic marking

b. 1-14

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

  in A

FE

GE

EE
 
..

The dynamic hairpins written in A in bars 1, 2, 6, 10 and 14 were not printed in the editions and those in bars 5, 9 and 13 were inaccurately reproduced. Changes in the signs' range are undoubtedly accidental, therefore, in the main text we follow the notation of A. On the other hand, it is unclear whether the omission of the details can be fully blamed on the engraver's inaccuracy (or perhaps haste). The musical image transferred by FE, although less detailed, seems to be convincing and could have been accepted by Chopin. Therefore, we consider the two main, source sets of signs – A and FE – to be equal and we suggest them in the main text in the variant form.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

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