mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
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
Undo Clear

b. 8

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

No sign in GC (→GE) & EE

Arpeggio sign in FE
..

The arpeggio sign before the 2nd chord in the L.H., present only in FE, was most probably added by Chopin in the base text to this edition or at the time of proofreading.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

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