mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 2-14

composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

No pedalling in A

Pedalling in FE (→GE1→GE1a)

GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE

Our suggestion

Our alternative suggestion
..

The pedal markings added in a proofreading of FE in bars 2, 6 and analog. differ in the placement of the pedal release's mark, which in bars 2 and 14 (as well as in 50) is under the 3rd quaver of the bar, while in bar 6 – under the 2nd one. According to us, it cannot be excluded that Chopin had a different vision of pedalling in bars 1-2 and 9-10 (the first bar of the pair without pedal and in the second one, a half-bar long pedal) and a different one in bars 5-6 and 13-14 (all bars with a pedal to the 2nd quavers). We suggest this possibility, in which the  mark in bar 14 must be considered as misplaced, in the main text. As an alternative, we give a homogeneous pedalling in bars 2, 6 and analog., in which  always falls in the middle of the bar (it requires to assume that  in bar 6 was written by mistake).

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

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , No pedal release mark

b. 2-4

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

Slur in AI

A

FE (→GE1), possible interpretation

GE2 (→GE3→GE4) & EE
..

Neither in A nor in FE are the slurs in these bars precise. The slur of A gradually fades due to the ending ink, hence it is uncertain where it was supposed to end, according to Chopin. In FE (→GE1) the doubt concerns the transition to the new line between bars 2 and 3 – the slur in bar 2 suggests continuation (in accordance with A), which is, however, not confirmed by the new slur in bar 3. Although the slur in AI is legible, in this manuscript, the slurs generally seem to be written very randomly, without the intention of creating a coherent, complete image of phrasing or articulation (convergence with the 2nd slur of FE is most probably coincidental). According to us, there is no reason to think that the slurring here could differ from analogous indications in bars 10-12, embraced with one slur both in A and in the editions. Cf. bar 47.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 2-6

composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major

No slurs in A (→FE→EE3)

Slur in GE & EE4

Our suggestion
..

We suggest to complete the slurs after Chopin's marks in analogous bars 16 and 20. In bar 6 the slur was already added in GE and EE4.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 2

composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major

..

We add a cautionary  before e2. The sign was already added in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 2-4

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

No signs in A (→FE)

  in FC (→GE1)

  in EE

  in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The pair of   hairpins must have been added by Chopin in FC and base text to EE. Nothing indicates that Chopin could have wanted to resign from these indications – their absence in A (→FE) is almost certainly a result of haste and insufficient attention at the time of parallelly introducing corrections and additions in three Stichvorlage manuscripts. Similarly in bars 6-8.
Shortening the  sign in GE2 (→GE3) is most probably an editorial revision or a mistake of the engraver. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC