mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 56

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No mark in CLI

Long accent in FE

Short accent in GE & EE
..

The accent in FE, most probably a long one, was added in GE and EE as a short one. In the main text we give a long accent, as in analogous bar 8.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 60

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No mark in CLI

Long accent in FE (→GE1)

Short accent in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE
..

In the main text we give the long accent featured in FE (→GE1). The short accent remains in a few editions; it could be a result of a misunderstanding of this aspect of Chopin's notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 64

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No marks in CLI & EE2

Long accents in FE

Short accents in GE & EE3 (→EE4)
..

Two accents in the 2nd half of the bar have the form of long accents in FE, which we adopt to the main text. GE and EE3 (→EE4) have short accents (in EE2 the signs were omitted).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in EE

b. 69-70

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No marks in CLI & EE2

 in FE (→GE) & EE3 (→EE4)

Long accents (interpretation of the sources)
..

Five consecutive  signs visible in FE (→GE) and EE3 (→EE4) can denote only long accents in this context. However, their significant size is not typical for Chopin long accents, yet they are to be found in autographs. It is very likely that the placement and size of the accents were distorted by the engraver, who, interpreting them as diminuendo, could subject them to a routine revision (cf., e.g., the Etude in A minor, No. 2, bars 8 and 12). In EE2 the signs were omitted, similarly as all other dynamic signs on this page. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in EE

b. 71-78

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No signs in CLI & EE2

  in FE (→GE) & EE3 (→EE4)
..

Four pairs of dynamic hairpins in FE (→GE) and EE3 (→EE4) are undoubtedly authentic. However, the reason they are missing in EE2 is not entirely clear, yet it seems plausible to assume that the engraver of EE worked in parts covering particular kinds of signs and, perhaps influenced by the lack of dynamic hairpins on the previous pages of the Etude, he omitted this stage also on this page. See also bars 69-70 and 76.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE