mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 23-24

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

No slurs in AI

One slur in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Two slurs in EE & GE3 (→GE4→GE5)
..

The slur of FE at the beginning of bar 24 (on the new line) very clearly indicates continuation of the preceding one and this is how it was understood in GE1 (→GE2). However, in EE it was the slur of FE in bar 23, ending on the last semiquaver, that was considered as correct. The separation of the slurs in GE3 (→GE4→GE5) is probably a mistake.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 25-26

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

No marks in AI

Wedge & dot in FE (→EE)

Three dots in GE1 (→GE1a)

L.H. dot in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5)

Wedges suggested by the editors
..

The octave in the R.H. is provided in FE (→EE) with a wedge in bar 25 and with a dot in bar 26. It is probably a result of misunderstanding of the notation of [A] (perhaps inaccurate). In GE1 (→GE1a) in both places there are dots, moreover, a dot was added – most probably by mistake – also over the octave in the L.H. It is hard to assume whether the omission of the signs in the R.H. in the subsequent GE is a result of a revision or of a mistake.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Wedges

b. 26

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

No marking in AI

 in FE (→GE,EE)

 suggested by the editors
..

 in FE (→GE,EE) is clearly the engraver's mistake here. It is revealed by  in the analogous situation in the previous bar and by a number of other obvious examples of distortion of this mark (see, e.g., the note to bars 16-18).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f

b. 29-30

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

No slurs in AI

Two slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE1a)

Three slurs in GE2, GE4 (→GE5) & EE3 (→EE4)

Two slurs in GE3
..

Lack of the slur in bar 30 in FE (→EE2,GE1→GE1a) must be regarded an inaccuracy, presumably an oversight of the engraver – slurs encompass remaining similar motives in the discussed bars. The lack of the 2nd slur in bar 29 in GE3 is undoubtedly an engraver's error.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 33-34

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

Long accents in AI

Short accents in FE (→GE1→GE1a→GE2)

Differentiated accents in EE

Differentiated accents in GE3 (→GE4→GE5)
..

In AI, the accents over the chords in these bars are undoubtedly long and this is the notation we adopt to the main text. FE has short accents (only the third one could be possibly considered as long), which seems to be less convincing, as far as the music is concerned, and probably results from an incomplete understanding of [A]. The accents in the remaining editions were subject to further modifications, most probably accidental.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies