mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections in GC

b. 6-8

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

dim. - - in GC

dimi-nu-en-do in EE

No indication in FE

dimin. - - - - in GE
..

The dim. indication was added by Chopin in GC (→GE), most probably also in the base text to EE. Its absence in FE proves that Chopin probably omitted the base text to this edition at the time of completing the Stichvorlage manuscripts in these bars. Similarly  in bar 8.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 7

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

Literal reading of slurs in GC (→GE1)

Possible interpretation of slurs in GC, and slur in FE & GE2 (→GE3)

Slurs in EE
..

The slurring of EE is the original state, corrected by Chopin at the stage of manuscripts only in GC. The accurate sense of this correction is not clear (GE1 interpreted the slurs literally as non-connected), yet Chopin proofreading of FE dissipates the doubts concerning the composer's intention. Cf. analogous bars 50-51.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections in GC

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. 11

composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor

No markings in AT & CDP

Pedalling in AW, GC (→GE), FE & EE
..

Despite the presence of indications in AW, it seems that the pedalling in GC and other Stichvorlage manuscripts, including [A], was added by Chopin in the last phase of preparations of base texts for edition, which explains its absence in CDP. Similarly in bar 30. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections in GC

b. 12

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

Demisemiquaver in GC (→GE)

Semiquaver in FE & EE
..

It is unclear how the difference in the rhythm in this place was created, however, none of these two versions seems to be erroneous. The notation of EE indicates a possibility of the engraver's error – the b1 semiquaver is placed closer to the bar line than the g semiquaver, therefore, it is possible that in the base text to EE the rhythm was the same as in GC. It also cannot be excluded that the additional dot and beam were added in GC by Chopin, although the graphical image of the notation rather does not confirm it. Due to the above ambiguities, in the main text we give the double dotted rhythm, present in the base source (GC).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections in GC , Dotted or even rhythm