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

b. 15-17

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

 in GC

 in FE & EE

 in GE1

 in GE2 (→GE3)

 suggested by the editors
..

The  hairpins written in GC are certainly too long – leading the diminuendo one quaver beyond  placed at the beginning of the new phrase is unable to be performed in a noticeable manner (cf. the Etude in A minor, No. 11, bar 16). Therefore, in the main text we end the sign still in bar 16, in accordance with FE, EE and GE2 (→GE3). In turn, both potentially authentic moments of beginning the sign – in GC and in FE and EE – are, according to us, equally justified, as far as the music is concerned. The slight shift of the beginning of  in GE is a typical inaccuracy of this edition – adjustment of the range of the sign to the rhythmic structure (most often to beams).    

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 17-18

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

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 25

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

No indication in GC (→GE)

marcato in FE

marcato in EE
..

It seems to be highly unlikely that Chopin consciously resigned from the marcato indication in GC (→GE). Its absence can be explained either by its oversight by the copyist or its later addition by Chopin in the base text to FE and EE (perhaps as a new idea after resignation from accents whose deletion in bars 25-29 is visible in GC). According to us, adding the accents as an equivalent of marcato and complete resignation from suggesting distinctive accentuation seem to be much less likely. Taking into account the above possibilities, we give this indication in the main text, placed as in FE, as the placement of marcato in EE under the part of the L.H. may be an arbitrary decision of the engraver or copyist.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections in GC

b. 25-44

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

Three-notes slurs in GC (→GE) & FE

Two-notes slurs in EE
..

Shorter slurs of EE – see bars 1-24.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 32

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

No sign in GC (→GE1) & EE1

 in FE, GE1 & GE2 (→GE3)

 in GE2 (→GE3)

 suggested by the editors
..

It is likely that by introducing the  sign on the  sign in GC, Chopin wanted to extend the original, half-bar-long pedal. Due to this fact, in the main text we suggest to release the pedal only at the end of the bar; the version is included in GE2 (→GE3). In FE, GE1 and EE2 (→EE3), the pedalling embraced only the 1st half of the bar, which in the case of GE1 probably results from misunderstanding the sense of the correction described above.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections in GC