Issues : EE revisions

b. 1

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

No title nor dedication in AI

in A (contextual interpretation)

in FE1

in FE2

in GE

in EE3

in EE4

..

In the main text we give the title and dedication in the undoubtedly authentic version adopted in FE. The extensions of both the title (in GE and EE) and dedication (in EE) most probably come from the editors. See Etude in C, No. 1, bar 1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Dedications , GE revisions

b. 1-7

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

Slurs for 5 & half bars in AI

2 bars in A

1 bar in FE (→GE,EE3)

7 bars in EE4

..

The sources differ in the length of the initial phrase of the Etude, provided with the slurs in the L.H. As there is no doubt that the aforementioned slurs are written as a model and the similar slurring generally applies in the entire Etude, all these notations should be considered as equal. In the main text we give the version of A, as undoubtedly authentic and later than AI (in FE the missing slurs in bar 2 may be accidental). See also bars 8 and 9-16.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 1-9

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

Fingering in A (→FEGE)

..

The fingering given by Chopin in A (→FEGE) was repeated by Fontana in EE in the subsequent figures until bar 5. Fontana recalled this fingering also in bar 9.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 2-4

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

Slur in AI

FE (→GE1), possible interpretation

GE2 (→GE3GE4) & EE

..

Neither in A nor in FE are the slurs in these bars precise. The slur of A gradually fades due to the ending ink, hence it is uncertain where it was supposed to end, according to Chopin. In FE (→GE1) the doubt concerns the transition to the new line between bars 2 and 3 – the slur in bar 2 suggests continuation (in accordance with A), which is, however, not confirmed by the new slur in bar 3. Although the slur in AI is legible, in this manuscript, the slurs generally seem to be written very randomly, without the intention of creating a coherent, complete image of phrasing or articulation (convergence with the 2nd slur of FE is most probably coincidental). According to us, there is no reason to think that the slurring here could differ from analogous indications in bars 10-12, embraced with one slur both in A and in the editions. Cf. bar 47.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 8

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

a in AI, GE & EE

in A (→FE)

..

The version of A (→FE) is almost certainly erroneous. It is revealed by the notation of AI in this bar and a compatible version of all sources in analogous bar 44. The correct text of GE and EE is most probably a result of revisers' actions, probably on the basis of comparison with bar 44.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of A