mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F 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. 63-64

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

Fingering written in FED

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 63

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

Accent in AI

No accent in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

In the version prepared for print, Chopin did not consider the accent written in AI. As in this manuscript the 2nd half of the bar includes a correction, it is not entirely clear whether the accent was meant to concern the original or the changed version. In this section of the Etude AI is already of a draft nature – cf. the note to bars 51-67.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 63-64

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

Possible interpretation of AI

AI (probable interpretation) & A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

In both bars in AI the semiquaver groups are written as quavers. It is a patent inaccuracy, following from the draft nature of the notation. The a1-a2 quaver in the 2nd half of bar 63 may be considered as totally deleted, which leads to an identical version with the remaining sources. However, it is also possible to consider it as a slashed grace note in which the bottom a1 was deleted.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors

b. 64

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

Grace note in AI & A

No ornament in FE (→GE,EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

It is hard to determine whether the missing grace note at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar in FE (→GE,EE) is a result of the engraver's inaccuracy or Chopin's proofreading. In the entire Op. 10 such omissions of FE of certain elements written in the base text (A) appear so numerously that an oversight seems to be a natural and plausible explanation of the grace note's absence. On the other hand, while proofreading this Etude, Chopin, among others, deleted the ornaments in bars 2-3, 6-7 and 42, hence he could have also resigned from this ornament, given that he had already resigned from its equivalent in bar 63. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a variant suggestion with a grace note in brackets.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 64-65

composition: Op. 10 No 9, Etude in F minor

Pedal in A

FE (→GE)

EE
..

In A Chopin marked only the pedal sustention of the F bass note as the sound base of three last chords. He then improved this pedalling, while proofreading FE (→GE). The reviser of EE in a sense returned to Chopin's original idea by adding a change of pedal at the beginning of bar 65. See also bar 67.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE