mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

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. 51

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

Slur in A, GE & EE

No slur in FE
..

The slur visible in A under the semiquaver triplet is one of a few elements overlooked by the engraver of FE in this place (cf. the remarks concerning the accent and tie sustaining g2). The sign was added in GE and EE. Without a doubt, the slur plays here a double role – formal, as a part of the triplet's mark, and phrasing and articulation one.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Triplet slurs

b. 51

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

Accent in A

No mark in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

Most probably the accent was omitted in the editions accidentally.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 52

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

No 8va sign in A (→FE→EE3)

With 8va sign in GE (→EE3)
..

The correctness and authenticity of the version of A (→FE→EE3) are undeniable, therefore we adopt it in the main text. The version of GE (and EE4), in spite of the fact that from the pianistic point of view it seems to be more natural, may be attributed to the reviser, as Chopin's possible intervention in the shape of GE1 is highly unlikely.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 52

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

 & sotto voce in A

 in FE (→GE,EE) 

Our suggestion
..

The graphic difficulties, which the engraver of FE would have to face if he wanted to fit  and sotto voce written in A, could have contributed to their omission. However, independently from the fact whether Chopin deleted these indications at the time of proofreading FE or whether they were simply not there, his decision to add  must be considered as binding. In the main text we move this mark by one quaver, as the musical sense hints at the fact that Chopin's entry was misinterpreted.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 53-54

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

Pedalling in A

FE (→GE1)

GE2 (→GE3→GE4)

EE
..

In FE the  mark in bar 53 and the  mark in bar 54 were omitted. They are patent errors. In GE2 (→GE3→GE4) and in EE a  mark was added at the beginning of bar 53. In EE the  marks in bar 54 were also added. In the main text we give the only authentic pedalling of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , No pedal release mark