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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

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. 49-57

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

..

In bars 49, 52-53, 55 and 57 GE added rests for the bottom voice of the L.H., which was repeated in EE3. Generally, Chopin would not complicate the notation with such rests, which in piano music are not necessary for an unambiguous interpretation of the text. See also bars 50 and 51.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 50

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

..

The E minim is not extended with a dot in any of the sources. In analogous bar 86 one of the sources – FE – features a dotted minim, so one can ponder which of the values is correct. If we were to consider the authentic pedalling, ensuring that the note sounds throughout the entire bar, it would turn out that the choice of a rhythmic value is of the ideational meaning only. Therefore, we do not intervene in the source text and we adopt this version in the main text also in bar 86. In GE, the allegedly missing rhythmic value of the bottom voice was arbitrarily completed with a crotchet rest (cf. bars 49-57). The addition was repeated in EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 51

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

Minim in FC

Dotted minim in FE & EE1 (→EE2)

Minim with rest in GE & EE3
..

In this bar, due to the change of harmony on the 3rd beat of the bar, the issue of sustaining the d minim to the end of the bar has a crucial practical meaning. Therefore, the version of FC is probably a mistake, additionally confirmed by the rest, added arbitrarily in GE (and EE3). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 51

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

Quaver in FC (→GE) & EE

Crotchet in FE
..

The fact of extending the sound of the f1 note can be a Chopin improvement introduced in the base text or proofreading of FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE