mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

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. 75

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

Slur in A, literal reading

FE (→GE,EE), interpretation of A
..

It is unclear whether the slur in A embraces the entire bar or only the last two notes, thus emphasising the expressive gesture of suspending the phrase. Despite the fact that the second possibility seems to be musically attractive, in the main text, on the basis of the analysis of the slurs' notation in this section of A, we suggest the interpretation adopted in FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 75

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

No accidentals in A

 f &  f in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

The text of A is generally correct. Lack of the  before the 2nd note is however most probably a result of Chopin's distraction (haste). It is revealed by the place before the note, most probably left for the accidental to be inserted and, above all, by a later proofreading of FE (→GE,EE), in which both the  and the cancelling it  before the 8th semiquaver were added. It is not the only omission of an accidental introducing alteration of this kind in Chopin's works, although it rarely occurs (e.g., in the Etude in F minor, Op. 25 No. 2, bar 56).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 75

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

Dotted minim in A, GE & EE4

Semibreves in FE (→EE3)
..

The version of FE, when interpreted literally – d1-f1 as semibreves, including the upper one with a dot – is certainly erroneous. We assume, as it was interpreted in EE, that the notation determines the value of semibreve for the lower voice. This version could be considered to be a result of Chopin's proofreading, yet the engraver's error, who simply did not complete the work (a minim flag and a dot next to the lower note are missing), seems to be a more likely possibility. This is how this place was corrected in GE; we give this undoubtedly authentic version in the main text. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 75

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

b (without ) in A (→FE→GE1,EE3)

b in GE2 (→GE3→GE4) & EE4

b with , our suggestion
..

The fact that the  added in GE2 (→GE3→GE4) does not correspond to Chopin's intention is revealed by the melodic analogy in bars 18 and 58, which in the authentic sources are also devoid of , and, additionally, by Chopin's fingering.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 77-80

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

No fingering in A (→FE→GE)

Fingering in EE

Fingering written into FED

Our suggestion
..

The fingering added by Fontana in EE is based on Chopin's fingering of a similar figure in bars 1-2. In the main text we do not include it; however, we give the digits written by Chopin in FED (due to practical reasons, moved two bars before, where the identical figuration appears for the first time).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED