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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 12-14

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

 in FC (→GE)

 in FE & EE
..

The sources differ in the moment when the  hairpins start. To the main text we adopt the version of FC (→GE), in which the earlier beginning of the sign is synchronised with the harmonic change. We discuss the issue of the ending of the hairpins in the note concerning .

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 15-23

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

Short accents in FC (→GE), FE & EE

Long accents suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we give long accents over the d1 minims, although the notation of the sources does not suggest it. According to us, it is highly likely that the signs of the autograph were misinterpreted both by the copyist and the engravers:

  • misunderstanding of the idea of Chopin long accents was common among the engravers;
  • generally, Fontana also did not notice the difference between both types of accents in his copies (he most probably considered it an inaccuracy of notation), which can be proved in the pieces in which, apart from the copy, we dispose of the copied autograph – cf. e.g., the Etude in A minor, No. 4, bars 9-10 or Tarantella, Op. 43, bars 164-178;
  • in the autograph of the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, 3rd mov., bars 433-438, in a similar context Chopin introduced long accents. 

Similarly in bars 24 and 114-121.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 15-16

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

 in FC (→GE)

No sign in FE & EE1 (→EE2)

 in EE3
..

In the main text we include the  sign written in FC (→GE). Shortening of the hairpins in EE3, most probably modelled after GE, probably resulted from lack of space between the staves.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 25-28

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

  in FC

  in FE

  in EE

  in GE
..

According to us, the differences in the range of the dynamic hairpins are of an accidental character – Chopin probably would introduce them in a haste, whereas the copyists and the engravers could have reproduced them in an inaccurate manner. All versions mean more or less the same. In the main text we give the signs of FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 72

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

 in FC (→GE)

No sign in FE

 in EE
..

In the main text, we give the  hairpins after FC (→GE). The slightly differing range of hairpins in EE does not change the sense of this indication. Lack of the sign in FE is one of a few examples of a less careful development of dynamic indications of this source in this fragment – cf. bars 70-72 and 73.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins