mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 7, 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
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 48-51

composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major

..

In A there is no  before the bottom note of the last octave in bar 48. The  and the  before the bottom notes of the 4th and 5th octaves in bar 51 are also missing. These patent oversights were corrected in FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 48

composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major

Wedge in A (→FE→EE,GE1→GE2)

Dot in GE3 (→GE4)
..

Change of the type of the staccato mark in GE3 (→GE4) is certainly non-authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

b. 48-50

composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major

..

In A (→FE) there are no flats lowering b(1) to b(1) in bars 48 and 50. These evident errors were corrected in GE and EE (the accidental in bar 48 was added only in EE4).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 49-50

composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major

Slurs and wedge in A

Slurs in FE, literal reading

Probable interpretation of slurs in FE (→EE)

Different interpretation of FE

Different interpretation of FE (→GE)
..

The sources do not allow for a clear-cut determination of the intended by Chopin articulation and phrasing concerning the transition of bars 49 and 50. In the main text we give the version of A, as it is undoubtedly authentic and written faultlessly (unequivocal). The ambiguous version of FE may be interpreted in many ways; we give preference to the one in which the slur beginning in bar 50 remained unchanged, probably being a result of Chopin's correction (see bars 51-52). This is how the notation was interpreted in EE. Another one was adopted in GE and we present a third one as an additional possibility.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 49-50

composition: Op. 10 No 7, Etude in C major

Slurs in A & probable interpretation of FE (→EE)

Different interpretation of FE (→GE)
..

The slurs of FE are unclear – in bar 49 (at the end of the line) the slur suggests a continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in bar 50, beginning from the 1st semiquaver in the bar. It is probably a result of an error of the engraver of FE. In each of the editions based on FE the inaccuracy was handled in a different way (similarly as in the case of the slurs in the L.H.). In the main text we give the unequivocal version of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions