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. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

Normal size notes in GC (→GE) & EE

Small notes in FE
..

It is not certain whether Chopin imagined a barless introduction written with notes of normal size or with small ones. According to us, it is more likely that Gutmann did not recognise small notes in the notation of [A] and a similar mistake committed in the base text to EE or by the engraver of this edition (cf. the Prelude in C minor, Op. 45, bar 79) than an arbitrary change of regular notation to small notes in FE. Other scenarios explaining the origin of this difference are also possible, yet the notation with small notes, used more often in this type of time signature free fragments, generally seems to be more likely here.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

Quavers in GC (→GE) & EE

Crotchets in FE
..

In the main text we suggest quavers, as their authenticity is beyond any doubt. In turn, the crotchets in FE may be a result of the engraver's inattention – the spaces between the c-B and B-a notes correspond to the previous space c-c (quaver) and not G-d (crotchet), which probably means that the engraver planned the notes, seeing quavers in the base text, however, then he omitted this place while adding the beams. On the other hand, one cannot completely exclude Chopin's proofreading in FE – he may have accepted crotchets during the lessons, as an appropriate correction was not written in any of the three pupil's copies (two of them – FED and FES – bear clear traces of a detailed development of the Etude with Chopin, while in FES the first added fingering concerns exactly these two notes). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

Fingering written into FED

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering

Suggested combination of Chopin's indications
..

The fingering written in FED and FES complement each other and partially overlap, hence in the main text we give them together.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

No mark in GC (→GE), FE & EE

Accent in FES

Our suggestion
..

In FES the long accent is written under the stave, however, it cannot concern any other note than the e1 minim. The lines of unclear meaning visible in this copy may underline its connection to this note and the significance of its clear performance for the expression of the phrase. In the main text we suggest this lesson's note, perhaps related to the extension of the slur, in brackets.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

Slurs in GC

Slurs in FE & GE1

Slur in EE & FES

Slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The slur in EE may be considered as a result of misunderstanding of the manuscript (perhaps inaccurate), if it were not for the extension of the slur written – most probably by Chopin – in FES. Therefore, it seems that a relevant indication of the overlapping phrases bothered Chopin both at the stage of preparing the Etude for print and many years later during the lessons. The versions of FE and GE1 and GE2 (→GE3) are most probably only conventional interpretations of the handwritten notation which can be seen in GC.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES