The dynamic signs in the first eight-bar section of the Etude and first part of its changed repetition (bars 1-12) create two different sets in the sources (from bar 13 all sources present a generally cohesive dynamics' image):
-
in A (→FE) the only sign is
in bar 8; -
the remaining sources have three pairs of
signs in bars 2-4 and 6-8 and 11-12 and two single signs, enhancing the accents in bars 9-10.
The chronology of these versions is unclear – if A had not included any dynamic signs in these bars at the time of preparing FC and base text to EE, it is impossible to state whether Chopin first added the of the first version in A or the signs of the second version in FC and base text to EE.
From the musical point of view, the situation resembles the Etude in E
major, Op. 10 No. 11. Each of the aforementioned versions gives a reasonable and inspiring image of the music:
-
in the first the initial eight-bar section is treated neutrally from the point of view of dynamics. It is the very texture and rhythmic structure and harmonic atmosphere that are intriguing, as well as the melodic line, barely sketched, yet not obvious at all. Crescendo in bar 8 emphasises the return to the main key and introduces repetition of the opening phrase, in which the accentuated syncopations initiate a surprisingly new – although drawing from the almost unchanged interval scheme – vision of the melody. The dynamic nuance is marked only in bars 14-16 and again in relation to the harmonic and formal structure – modulation to the E minor key, only signalised for the first time (bar 7), already reaches its goal, which is accompanied by clear dynamic effects in the form of echo (
in bar 17) and another (after bar 8) crescendo introducing a new phrase (
in bar 19). -
in the second version Chopin naturally nuances the phrasing in both eight-bar sections from the very beginning, however, he did not suggest their mutual relation, omitting in bar 8.
After all, both versions do not have to be considered as mutually exclusive, as Chopin could have left the complementary indications in various sources as a result of distraction at the time of adding them in three Stichvorlage manuscripts. The fact that he probably accepted the inclusion of crescendo in bar 8 in the series of details written in the remaining manuscripts is proved by bars 44-46, in which analogous signs co-exist in the version of FE. Therefore, in the main text, adopting the second version as basic, we also signalise a possibility of completing it with the indicated in the first version crescendo in bar 8.
The shorter hairpins in GE2 (→GE3) is probably a result of an editorial revision, although one can also imagine a mistake of the engraver.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins, GE revisions, Authentic corrections of FC
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins