mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Pitch
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Pitch

b. 12

composition: Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before e. The sign was added already in GE1 and repeated in EE3. In GE2 (→GE3) a  was added also before g.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 33

composition: Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

..

We add cautionary flats before b2 and b3. The signs were added already in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 34

composition: Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

Triad in GC (→GE) & EE3

Sixth in FE & EE1 (→EE2)

Our variant suggestion
..

Finding out which of the two source versions is later does not seem to be possible due to the doubts concerning their authenticity. The triad in GC is written with the copyist's hand, therefore, the version was probably in [A]. A possible copyist's error seems to be highly unlikely here, unless the autograph included a kind of deletions (another possibility is the erroneous introduction of the chord on the 4th quaver in the bar). In turn, the omission of the middle note of the chord, written on the ledger line, is quite a frequent mistake, as in Chopin's autographs, the note heads have a tendency to merge with both the chord's stem and ledger line (cf., e.g., the Etude in G major, Op. 10 No. 5, bar 15). However, if we are to exclude possible mistakes, the version considered to be later should have been the one with the sixth. Therefore, in the main text, we suggest a variant solution.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 34

composition: Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

No accidentals in sources (literal reading—C-c)

Contextual interpretation suggested by the editors (C-c)
..

Lack of the naturals raising C-c to C-c is almost certainly Chopin's mistake, despite the fact that this kind of oversights of signs introducing alterations are not frequent (yet they are to be found in, e.g., the Etude in F minor, No. 2, bar 56). It could have seemed that the C-c octave did not require naturals due to the following reasons:

  • on a number of occasions, Chopin was not sure whether the last or the following it key signature is valid or not, particularly when their number was significant (cf., e.g., the Etude in G minor, No. 6, t. 7-8).
  • the chromatic progressions are characteristic for the melodic structure of a number of fragments of the Etude, e.g., in bars 1-3, 10, 23-24 (in the latter they are also in the harmonic structure). The last such fragment are bars 32-36;
  • the harmonic progression at the transition between bars 34-35 was probably supposed to refer to the progression in bars 32-33, where there is C-c. Therefore, the psychological mechanism of overlooking the naturals could have been similar to the one that was responsible for omissions of the signs of the current key – here is the signs of the current harmonic context that would have been omitted.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Last key signature sign , Errors of GC

b. 37-38

composition: Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

G1, d in GC & GE2

d-b, G in FE

G1, d in GE1

G1, d in GE3

B1, d in EE1

d-b, G in EE2

G1, d in EE3
..

In GC, the version beginning from G1 was written by Chopin instead of the original version of FE, beginning from the sixth. This undeniable improvement was also introduced in the base text to EE1, in which, however, it was reproduced inaccurately – both B1 at the beginning of the bar and the lack of tie sustaining d are most probably mistakes. In turn, EE1 includes a dot extending the des crotchet, overlooked in GC. This inaccuracy of the notation of GC was corrected only in GE3, which, thanks to this, is the only source in which the final version is written flawlessly.
The versions of EE2 and EE3 are a result of subsequent revisions – in EE2 it was the version of FE (only in the 1st half of bar 37) that was introduced, whereas in EE3 it was the final version that was reintroduced, yet in an inaccurately written form drawn from GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections in GC