mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

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. 86

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

g2-e3 in FC (→GE1)

e3 in FE, EE & GE2 (→GE3)
..

As the 9th semiquaver, FC (→GE1) features a g2-e3 sixth. The unjustified breaking of the rule of figuration structure adopted by Chopin undoubtedly indicates a mistake of the copyist. The error was corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 92

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

..

In FC and FE there is no  raising b to b in the 2nd half of the bar. This patent inaccuracy was corrected in GE and most probably in EE, as the defect was present probably in all Stichvorlage manuscripts. The sharp added in FE2 before the 11th semiquaver was probably an attempt to correct this inaccuracy, a doubly failed attempt – the sign was added three semiquavers too late and at a wrong pitch.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 109

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

Lombard rhythm in FC (→GE) & EE

Quavers in FE
..

No traces of corrections do not allow to indicate which rhythm is later, while from the stylistic point of view, both versions seem to be equal. In the main text, we give the version of the base source, i.e. FE.
In FC, there is no dot extending the last note in the R.H., which was corrected in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

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