mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 37

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

Accent in A, interpretation

Sign in FE

Sign in GE1

 in EE

 in GE2 (→GE3→GE4)
..

The not entirely clear mark of A – hairpins (?), accent (?) – was reproduced in FE in a way which also offers different possibilities of interpretation. It was reflected in the differing arrangement of the mark in GE1 and EE. In subsequent GE,s the range of  was graphically adapted to the metric structure. In the main text we give a long accent, as, according to us, it is the most plausible interpretation of the mark of A. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 38

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

Long accent in A & EE

No mark in FE (→GE)
..

The clear long accent in A was omitted in FE (→GE). It is not certain how it appeared in EE, as guessing such a detail by the reviser seems to be an incredibly lucky coincidence. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 40

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

Accent in A, interpretation

No mark in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

We consider the mark of A, which is quite unclear, as a long accent. The atypical notation probably stems from lack of space caused by the corrections performed one line above. This could also have been a reason for the mark's omission in the editions.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 41-44

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

Possible long accents in A

Possible short accents in A

Short accents in FE (→GE)

EE3

EE4

Short accents suggested by the editors

Long accents suggested by the editors
..

In the majority of the sources, the notation of accents is inaccurate. In A in bars 43-44 Chopin limited himself to general suggestions concerning accents, in FE (→GE,EE) the marks were partially completed (only in bar 43). Moreover, the attention is drawn by the difference in bars 41-42 – in FE (→GE) the accent on the 2nd beat in bar 41 was omitted (added in EE3), yet a mark was added over the last group in bar 42. All cases of the mark's omissions most probably result from distraction. In the main text we include all accents in bars 41-43 and we suggest to complete the marks in bar 44. EE4 displays such completed text.

The type of accents, which Chopin had in mind at the time of writing A in these bars, constitutes another problem. We consider short accents to be more natural in this context and this is how it was understood in FE (→GE,EE). However, due to the existing doubts, we also suggest long accents as a possible interpretation of A and an alternative version of the main text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 62

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

Long accent in A

No sign in FE (→GE,EE) 

 suggested by the editors
..

The mark written in A under the first chord has a form of a typical long accent. Despite this fact, in the main text we suggest  hairpins after authentic marks in bars 12 and 52. In FE (→GE,EE) the mark was overlooked.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE