mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
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. 52

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

g in GC (→GE) & EE

No g in FE

Alternative variant suggestion
..

There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these versions, however, it turns out to be very difficult to state how the difference occurred and, as a consequence, which version is to be considered as final. The version of FE, same as in analogous bar 8, seems to be earlier, on the other hand, the version of GC was written entirely by the copyist, hence it was probably in [A], which leads to the conclusion that g could have been deleted in the proofreading of FE. Taking into account the above – and other – doubts, as well as the fact that both versions sound well, in the main text we adopt the version of the base source, i.e. GC. We suggest the variant version, with g in brackets, as an alternative solution.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 52

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

 in GC (→GE), FE & EE3

No sign in EE1 (→EE2)
..

The missing  hairpins in EE1 (→EE2) is almost certainly an inaccuracy of notation – it was either Chopin that forgot to add them in the base text or the engraver who overlooked them.

category imprint:

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE

b. 52-53

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

No grace note in GC (→GE), FE & EE

Grace note in FES
..

In FES, in the middle part of the chromatic run, there is a zigzag, which may indicate a deletion of a part or entire run, while at the beginning of bar 53 there is an added e grace note (same as in bar 1). One can suppose that it is about a kind of simplification of the virtuoso passage (same as in bars 22 and 24), yet in this case the text, with which it is supposed to be replaced, was not written, nor marked in a legible way. Perhaps Chopin meant to repeat the relevant fragment in bar 8, then the grace note in bar 53 would have certainly been written with a mistake (e instead of c). In face of such an unclear situation, we give the printed text as the version of FES, completed with the literally interpreted grace note. In the main text, we do not consider these entries in any form.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Terzverschreibung error , Annotations in FES

b. 53

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

Fingering digit written in FED

No teaching fingering 
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 55

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

..

The visible in FED deletion of the second of the grace notes indicating the beginning of the trill does not influence the performance, yet it proves that Chopin notation was incomprehensible already for some of his pupils. The notation – indicating the beginning of the trill from the bottom second  – remains one of the most frequent reasons of misinterpretation of the Chopin text.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED