mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 14

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

c2-b2 in FC, FE, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

c2-c3 in GE1
..

In GE1 it is c3 that is the top note of the semiquaver on the 3rd beat of the bar. It is certainly a mistake, corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 14-16

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

..

There is no  in bar 14 before the last note in the R.H. in FC, FE and EE1. Similarly in bar 16, where the sign is absent in FC and EE1, whereas it is present in FE (probably added still in the base text to this edition). These patent oversights of Chopin were completed in GE and EE2 (→EE3). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 35-36

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

Crotchets, accent in FC

Minims, accents in FE

Crotchets, accents in EE

Crotchets in GE1

Crotchets, accent in GE2 (→GE3)

Minims, long accents suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we give the notation modelled on FE as most probably the latest and most consistent – the accents, minims and pedalling specify the way of performance accordingly. The remaining sources prove that Chopin tried to mark the possibility of separating the tenor voice in different ways. In the version of EE it is the original form of the 1st chord (with a), mistake in pedalling and placing accents on the wrong side that draw the attention. The notation of FC is inconsistent (an accent over f1, separate stem for e1) and incomplete (no pedalling). In GE it was distorted even more – e1 is not separated, whereas GE1 overlooked the accent.
According to us, it is highly likely that in this context Chopin most probably had long accents on his mind.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 36

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

..

In FC (→GE1) there are no arpeggio signs in this bar. It is certainly an oversight of the copyist, which forgot to introduce the wavy lines on the new page of the manuscript. The signs, present both in FE and EE, were added in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 42

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

in FC (→GE1)

in FE & EE

twice in GE2 (→GE3)
..

Both indications present in the sources are authentic. In the main text we give , as in FC one can see deletion of the letter 'z' in the previously written . Therefore, it is possible that Chopin considered  to be more accurate. The change in GE2 (→GE3) cannot come from Chopin. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC