Issues : Errors in FE

b. 1

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

in AI

in FE (→GE,EE)

..

We give the time signature marking after AI, although theoretically, Chopin could have introduced  in the lost [A]. According to us, it is, however, much more likely that it was an arbitrary change of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE), who did not use the  marking in the Etudes​ – contrary to the manuscripts – even once, cf. the Etudes in C major, No. 1, F major, No. 8 and C minor, No. 12. The phenomenon is also present in other pieces, even in the most obvious cases, e.g., in the Etudes in F minor, Op. 25 No. 2, D major, Op. 25 No. 8 or F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

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

in AI

in FE1

in FE2

in GE1

GE1a (→GE2GE3GE4GE5)

in EE2 (→EE3)

in EE4

..

Chopin did not write the title of the piece in AI, although it is hard to believe that in August 1832, at the stage of completing the entire Op. 10, he could have even considered naming it differently than Etude. The conviction is not hampered by the fact that at the end of the editorial autograph of the Etude in E major, No. 3, Chopin uses the determination of tempo-character il presto con fuoco for the identification of the subsequent etude in the collection. 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 the dedication (in EE) most probably come from the editors. See the Etude in C major, No. 1, bar 1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

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. 17

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

..

FE (→EE) has a  only before the upper note of the third in the middle of the bar. The sign before c1 is completely unnecessary here, however, the undoubtedly necessary  raising to a is missing. AI has the correct text, the mistake was also corrected in GE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 19

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

F in AI

E in FE (→GE,EE)

..

E in FE (→GE,EE) is probably erroneous – cf. similar figurations in bars 13-14 and 63-66 – hence in the main text we give F written in AI. The error probably consisted in putting a single sharp instead of the double one before the intended E note. See bar 15

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE