mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 12

composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor

..

The sharp returning c2 appears in [A] (→FC→GE1) and EE1 only before the 9th semiquaver, which is undoubtedly a mistake committed by Chopin (the composer, same as in many other places, concentrated on marking the top voice only). In the remaining sources, the sign was moved to the correct place (FE and GE2 and GE3) or was only added in this place (EE2 and EE3).  

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 17-18

composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor

..

In FC (→GE1) and FE there are no sharps returning d2 and c2 in the last group in bar 17 and c2 at the end of bar 18. EE and GE2 (→GE3) include the correct notation, which, in both cases, is a result of an editorial revision – in EE it is likely, in GE2 – certain.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 20

composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor

..

Same as previously, FE, EE1 and GE1 misinterpreted the abbreviated notation of FC and remaining Stichvorlage manuscripts, giving the 2nd, 3rd and 4th groups of semiquavers without any accidentals. The mistake was corrected in EE2 (→EE3) and GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 24-25

composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor

Slurs in FC (→GE1)

Slur in FE

Slur in EE

Slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

Different source slurring of these bars does not prove, according to us, various versions of phrasing, yet it only confirms difficulties with which one is faced at the time of interpreting slurs in Chopin autographs. In EE, the fact of embracing the entire discussed fragment with one slur, unconvincing from the piano and musical point of view, probably results from the panache, with which the slur was written in the manuscript (autograph or Gutmann's copy), which was supposed to start over the 2nd quaver in bar 25 – if its beginning falls already on the 1st quaver, the engraver could have assumed that it is about the link with the preceding D-G slur. In turn, in FC (→GE1), the division of the slur at the transition between bars 25-26 results from the probably too literal interpretation of broken slurs due to the change of clef and direction of beams (cf. the notation of FE, most probably yielding Chopin's intention better). Due to the above reasons, we consider the slurs introduced in GE2 (→GE3) to be correct. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 25

composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor

 in FC, FE, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

 in GE1

Our variant suggestion
..

According to us, the earlier pedal release than in similar situations may be a result of Chopin's mistake, who, while introducing the pedalling, most probably in the already finished pitch and rhythm text, only saw the change of the chord and did not check its sound. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a variant solution.
The  sign in GE1, placed slightly later, is most probably a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions