mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 34

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

 in AI

 in FE (→GE,EE)

 suggested by the editors
..

, uncommon in Chopin's autographs, is probably erroneous. Out of a few possible conjectures – , , ,  – we suggest , which, according to us, corresponds best to the context between cresc. and . Cf. bars 1 and 16.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f

b. 38

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

 in AI

No sign in FE (→GE,EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

It is hard to assume that the omission of the crescendo mark or verbal indication was intended here by Chopin – cf. the analogous phrase in bars 33-34. Therefore, in the main text we suggest the  of AI.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 46

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

 in AI

FE

GE1 (→GE2→GE3)

EE

No sign in GE4 (→GE5)
..

According to us, the  hairpins written by Chopin in AI render his intention better than the perhaps inaccurate mark of FE. Shortening the mark in GE1 (→GE2→GE4) and EE gives it a rank of a local detail, not directly related to  in the next bar. It can serve as an inspiration to the performer, yet it does not result from the notation of FE, not to mention the notation of AI.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 54

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

No markings in AI

 in FE (→GE,EE)

 suggested by the editors
..

A possible error of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE) is indicated by the repeated  just at the beginning of bar 55. A number of other examples of omission of the letter 'z' in  makes this error highly likely.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f

b. 69-70

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

No slur in AI & GE4 (→GE5)

Slur in FE (→GE1)

EE

GE2 (→GE3)

Our suggestion
..

The fact of beginning the slur from the 2nd group of semiquavers is almost certainly an inaccuracy of notation, which probably follows from [A]. Different versions of the slur's ending in EE and GE2 (→GE3) are certainly a result of the engravers' errors. The omission of the slur in GE4 (→GE5) may be considered as an oversight or revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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