mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 45-46

composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

Slur in A

Inaccurate slur in FE (→GE1)

Slur in GE2 & EE

No slur in GE3 (→GE4→GE5)

Our suggestion
..

In the sources of undeniable authenticity – A and FE – the slur is inaccurately written. In both sources it generally includes bar 46, yet in A it most probably reaches the 1st quaver in bar 47, while in FE (→GE1) it suggests a continuation from bar 45 (written in the previous line). In GE2 and EE the sign of FE was repeated, shortening its left end to avoid the notation's inaccuracy. In the main text we propose a slur embracing the entire phrase.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 45-46

composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

  in A

FE (→GE1,EE)
 

Our suggestion
..

It is unclear how the discrepancies between A and FE surfaced. Allegedly, there are a few factors to be considered: the inaccurately recreated hairpins of A and an ad hoc proofreading by Chopin in FE (→GE1,EE). In the main text we suggest a set chosen from the signs of FE, following the natural phrasing, which also stems from the notation of A. In GE2, and to a lesser extent in subsequent GE,s, the signs between the staves were assigned to the part of the R.H.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 47

composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

No pedalling in A

Pedal in FE

Pedal in GE

EE
..

The pedalling added by Chopin in a proofreading of FE is inaccurate – the  mark is between the first two quavers, so we do not know which one it concerns (there is no  mark at all). In GE and EE the  mark was moved (in a different way), so that the moment of depressing the pedal did not raise major doubts – both solutions may be considered as justified suggestions of guessing Chopin's intention. In the main text we prefer the interpretation adopted in EE, as in Chopin's manuscripts the arrangement of the  mark before the note is much more frequent than after it (most frequently it is certainly under the note). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , No pedal release mark

b. 48

composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

No sign in A (→FE→GE1,EE2)

 in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE3 (→EE4)

Our suggestion
..

In FE (→GE1,EE2) lack of the pedal release mark of the pedal depressed in bar 47 should be considered as an inaccuracy. In GE2 and subsequent GE,s, as well as in EE3 (→EE4) a  mark was added at the end of bar 48, which seems to be a reasonable suggestion if we take into consideration authentic indications in bars 45-46.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 48

composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

No sign in A

 in FE (→GE,EE)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the  mark added in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE) is a long accent, misunderstood by the engraver. Cf. the Etude in A minor, No. 2, bars 8, 12 and 17.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE