mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 122

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

d in chord in FC (→GE1), FE & EE1

d in EE2 (→EE3) & GE2 (→GE3)

d suggested by the editors
..

The sharp before the bottom note of the chord appears only in the later sources, bearing traces of an intense editorial revision – EE2 (→EE3) and GE2 (→GE3). The revisers could have considered the  in the next bar – written probably due to the simultaneously stroke d1 in the R.H. – to be a signal that there should be a  before the discussed note. In the main text we give the unambiguous version of FC (→GE1), FE and EE1, in which the bass line features a repetition of the sound at the transition between the bars, so characteristic for leading voices in this Etude. In order to avoid doubts, we provide this note with a cautionary natural. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 122

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Slur in FC, probable interpretation

Slur in FC (possible reading), FE & GE

No slur in EE
..

The moment of starting the slur in FC is unclear, which most probably corresponds to the notation of [A] and which would explain both the slur of FE and of GE (the seemingly shortened slur in GE3 is most probably a print fault). However, according to us, in this type of context, the written with panache beginning of the slur could concern only the 2nd crotchet in Chopin's intention – cf., e.g., the Mazurka in G minor, Op. 24 No. 1, bar 21. An additional argument for such an interpretation of this slur can be the slur of EE in bars 121-122. The total absence of the discussed slur in EE is most probably accidental.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 122

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

No marks in FC (→GE1→GE2) & FE

Staccato dot in EE

Accent in GE3
..

The staccato dot in EE may be authentic, whereas the accent in GE3 is not.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 122

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

 in FC (→GE)

No sign in FE

 in EE
..

The absence of the  sign in FE could mean that Chopin considered a possibility of a longer sustention of pedal, even to the end of bar 123.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 122-123

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Accents in FC

Accents for R.H. in FE & EE

L.H. accents in GE1

L.H. accents in GE2

Accents in both hands in GE3
..

Looking at 5 accents over the chords of the L.H. in FC, it is not easy to determine which hand they concern. The accents are written with the copyist's hand, hence one can assume that it looked similar in the remaining Stichvorlage manuscripts. As a result, in FE and EE the accents were assigned to the R.H., whereas in GE1 (→GE2) – to the left one. According to us, the signs concern both the right and left hands, which, in a non-authentic, yet equal manner, was marked in GE3.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions