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. 32

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

in GC, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

No sign in FE & GE1
..

Lack of  in FE is, according to us, the original version. The sign was also omitted in GE1, most probably as a result of misinterpretation of the correction in GC.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 32

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

No mark in GC (→GE), FE & EE

Accent in FED

Our variant suggestion
..

A reversed accent, sometimes used by Chopin (most often to highlight the note placed a second higher than the previous one), was added here in FED.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

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