Page: 
Source: 
p. 1, b. 1-24
p. 1, b. 1-24
p. 2, b. 25-48
p. 3, b. 49-72
p. 4, b. 73-92
p. 5, b. 93-120
p. 6, b. 121-140
p. 7, b. 141-160
p. 8, b. 161-192
p. 9, b. 193-214
p. 10, b. 215-241
Main text
Main text
GC - Gutmann's Copy
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Second impression of FE
FE3 - Third impression of FE
FE4 - Fourth impression of FE
FESch - Scherbatoff Copy
FES - Stirling copy
FED - Dubois copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Corrected reprint of GE
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Revised impression of EE
Select notes: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Differences
No differences
GC - Gutmann's Copy
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Second impression of FE
FE3 - Third impression of FE
FE4 - Fourth impression of FE
FESch - Scherbatoff Copy
FES - Stirling copy
FED - Dubois copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Corrected reprint of GE
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Revised impression of EE
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 5

in GC (→GE) & EE2

in FE (→EE1)

The Chopin  was often misinterpreted by the engravers as  – cf., e.g., the Etude in C minor, Op. 10 No. 4, bar 1. Therefore, it is highly likely to assume that Gutmann reproduced Chopin's autograph correctly, whereas the engraver of FE – not. The inclusion of , valid already from the 2nd quaver, makes the difference between both indications purely theoretical.

 

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions, Inaccuracies in FE, fz – f

notation: Verbal indications

Missing markers on sources: FESch, FED, FES