mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 20-24

composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major

..

The majority of the sources are missing some of the necessary cautionary signs (flats), which, however, only to the minimal extent impedes the correct interpretation of the text. As it can be concluded from the notation of FE, probably the closest to the notation of [A], Chopin generally omitted the sign next to the note, which already appeared in the same bar, with a relevant sign, one octave lower or higher (in the discussed fragment, FE lacks 12 flats). In GC and EE1 the notation is more precise, further additions were also introduced in EE2 (→EE3), yet only GE has a fully correct text. Similarly in bars 25-28.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 23

composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major

in GC (→GE) & EE

No marking in FE
..

According to us, it is highly unlikely that Chopin deleted on purpose the  sign in the base text to FE or while proofreading this edition. It would mean that he resigned from the characteristic echo effect while repeating the motif one octave higher, an effect Chopin suggested – with the use of  in bar 23 and 43 – as one of the first dynamic changes introduced in [A] still before performing Stichvorlage copies (both  in GC are written with the copyist's hand). Therefore, we are probably dealing with the engraver's oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 25-28

composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major

..

Similarly as in bars 20-24, although to a lesser extent, the notation of [A] lacks a few – five in total – necessary sharps and naturals (as notation of the autograph, one can feel free to consider the compatible version of GC and FE). It does not impede the correct interpretation of the text. In EE1 the notation is far more accurate (only the  before the 1st f1 in the R.H. in bar 25 was overlooked), whereas the remaining editions have the totally correct text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 41-44

composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major

..

Similarly as in bars 20-24, in the notation of [A] – for the notation of the autograph we consider the compatible version of GC and FE – seven necessary accidentals (naturals) are missing, which, however, does not impede the correct interpretation of the text. In EE1 (→EE2), the notation is already more accurate (in relation to GC and FE 2 signs were added, in the R.H. in bar 41), while the next 3 naturals were added in EE3. GE has the correct version, yet in GE1 there are no signs in the 2nd group in bar 43, which, from the graphical point of view, is the same as the previous one (repeating the signs in such situation is a question of convention).
An inaccurate notation is also present in two subsequent bars.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 45-46

composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major

..

GC and FE lack two flats before as notes in various octaves, while EE – one. These patent inaccuracies do not impede the correct interpretation of the text at all and they were corrected in GE (similarly as in bar 43 in GE1 there are no signs in the 2nd group in bar 45).  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC