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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 57

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

No marks in AI & A (→FE→EE)

Dots in GE
..

The staccato dots added in GE are most probably a result of the reviser's work who would draw on similar motifs in bars 29-30 and 58.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 58

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

No marks in AI & A

Dots & accent in FE (→GE,EE)

Our suggestion
..

All performance indications in the R.H. – dots, accents and slurs – were added by Chopin in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE). According to us, the engraver, by adding a short accent to the g1 crotchet, could have misinterpreted Chopin's entry in a proof copy. Therefore, in the main text we propose a long accent – cf. the note to bars 61-62.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 61-62

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

Long accent in AI

Short accents in A (→FE→GE,EE)

Long accents suggested by the editors
..

The accents in A seem to be short and this is how they were recreated in FE (→GE,EE). According to us, it may be a result of a subconscious tightening of the notation in order to fit the Etude on three pages. In analogous bars 29-30 the accents are clearly long and the accent in bar 61 in AI is also long.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

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