Select: 
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
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 8

composition: Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

a in chord in GC, FE, EE1 (→EE2) & GE2 (→GE3)

No a in chord in GE1 & EE3

..

Omitting the a note in the 2nd chord could have been Chopin's correction, introduced together with the changes in the Etude in A major, No. 1. The composer could have considered the chord without a as an improvement, due to a slightly clearer sound, while maintaining both the completeness of the harmonic structure and logics of the voice leading. According to us, it is, however, the engraver's oversight that seems to be more likely here, as in this Etude – same as in the remaining ones, except for the first one – there are no other traces of possible Chopin interventions in GE1, while omissions of a clearly written note in the base text are to be found in the first German edition, e.g., in the Etude in A minor, No. 4, bar 37. The version of GE1 was repeated in EE3, whereas in GE2 (→GE3), the four-note version of the base text was introduced (GC).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 8

composition: Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

Slur in GC (→GE)

Slur & dots in FE & EE

..

The sources do not give reasons for concluding how the difference in the articulation in the R.H. in the 1st half of the bar occurred. The slur of GC seems to be added by another hand than the majority of the remaining slurs of the Etude, which suggests Chopin's intervention. However, it is only an addition, as the manuscript had not included any articulation indications in this place. The addition of the slur could have been related to the addition of accents in the entire first period, in particular to the three accents breaking the scheme in the discussed bar. Due to this fact, we adopt the slur of GC (→GE) to the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections in GC

b. 8

composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

 in GC

No sign in FE

 in EE

 in GE1

 in GE2 (→GE3)

..

The range and placement of the  sign in EE may be authentic. In turn, the gradually extended hairpins in GE are certainly a result of routine action of the engraver or reviser of this edition. Lack of the sign in FE is probably Chopin's oversight – see the note on dim. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 8

composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

'1' in GC (→GE), FE & EE2 (→EE3)

No fingering in EE1

..

Lack of the fingering numeral in EE1 is probably an oversight of the engraver or copyist preparing the base text to this edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies

b. 8

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

a in FC (→GE) & EE2 (→EE3)

a in FE & EE1

..

It is hard to assume how the difference between the versions of FE and EE1 and these of FC (→GE) and EE2 (→EE3) occurred. In FC, the naturals introducing are written by the copyist, which means that they were present in the manuscript, probably an autograph copied by Fontana. Therefore, the absence of these signs in FE and EE1 could be explained by their later deletion by Chopin in the base texts to these editions. Hence a regular, chromatic progression of minor thirds in the middle voices would be then introduced only in bar 54 as a kind of variation of the repetition of this place. However, not being certain if it was so – the versions of FE and EE1 could have been results of mistakes – in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic version of FC (→GE). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Last key signature sign