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. 35

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

 in GC (→GE)

 in FE

 in EE

Our variant suggestion
..

It is hard to evaluate which placement of the  sign corresponds to the composer's intention. All three source versions can reflect the authentic notation, while the significant difference between FE and GC suggests that in the two lost manuscripts Chopin could have written the sign in two different places (the sign in GC is transcribed by the copyist). In the main text we suggest a variant solution, including the clearly varied versions of FE and GC (→GE). The bar is an example of a situation in which the pedal can be released in different places obtaining an equally good result and, moreover, the release of pedal can be performed gradually, which cannot be written with the help of the signs used by Chopin. Cf. the Etude in D major, No. 8, bars 19-20.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 36

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

Accent in GC (→GE)

No mark in FE & EE
..

The accent under a1 was most probably added in GC (→GE) by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections in 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

b. 37

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

..

The  concerning the bass G1 appears only in the sources including the later version of this bar – GC (→GE) and EE3 (in EE1 the indication was overlooked).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies

b. 37

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

 in GC (literal reading) & GE2 (→GE3)

 in GC (interpretation), FE & EE

 in GE1
..

The notation of GC does not clearly show whether the  indication is to be valid from the 2nd or 3rd quaver in the bar. It results from the fact of performing corrections in the L.H. and from the related to it insecurity whether to consider the relation of this sign to the part of the L.H. at all and if the answer is affirmative, whether to refer to the original version ( was written prior to the corrections) or to the final one. In the main text we give the sign in accordance with [A], reconstructed on the basis of the compatible version of GC prior to the correction and FE and EE. The versions of GE1 and GE2 (→GE3) constitute only possible interpretations of this notation, whereas only the second one can have a different meaning than the main text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE