mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ 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. 15

composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor

B in AI

A in FE (→GE,EE)
..

The version of the editions is probably erroneous – cf. analogous bars 65-66, yet also similar figurations in bars 13-14 and 63-64 – hence in the main text we give the version of AI. The intended note in FE (→GE,EE) was probably an A and the error consisted in writing a single sharp (A) instead of the double one (A) before the note, which in the notation of FE comes down to the omission of the dots surrounding the  – cf. both signs at the beginning of bars 13-14.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 15-17

composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor

Slur in AI & FE (→GE,EE)
 

Lengthened slur in FES
..

The slur in the L.H. in AI and FE (→GE,EE) embraces only two bars (in AI the beginning and the end are not precisely indicated). In FES Chopin extended the slur until D in bar 17.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 15

composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor

Slur in AI
..

In the main text we give the whole-bar slur of AI, compatible with the adopted slurring of the previous bars. However, the shorter slur of FE (→GE,EE) may be considered as equally musically justified due to the hold of the last c2, creating a syncopation. Cf. bars 13-14 and 63-65.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

b. 15

composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor

c2 in AI, literal reading

b1 in FE (→GE,EE)
..

Interpretation of the pitch of the 2nd and 3rd crotchets in AI poses difficulties – the note heads are slightly bigger than usually, which suggests performed corrections, yet their result is not clear:

  • on the 2nd crotchet of the bar one can see c2 (more likely) or d2,
  • on the 3rd crotchet one can see c2, yet one also cannot exclude b1.

Taking into account the fact that first three crotchets of the text are written at an each time lower pitch and the phrase development in the published version seems to be so natural thanks to repetitions of the four-note motif, one can suppose that the seemingly different notation of AI is simply erroneous, while in the notation of the 3rd crotchet, two clear errors overlapped – lack of  and inaccurate position of the note head.

As the version of AI we adopt a stylistically acceptable text which imposes itself, while interpreting without detailed analyses and comparisons. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccurate note pitch in A

b. 16-18

composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor

No markings in AI

 in FE (→GE,EE)

 suggested by the editors
..

The error of FE (→GE,EE) in bar 16 is undeniable:

  •  appears in the editions in three strictly analogous bars 18, 20 and 22;
  •  is rewritten already at the beginning of bar 16.

In all the aforementioned bars AI has only accents, without additional indications. Cf. bars 20-22.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f