mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of GC

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. 45-46

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

5 fingering digits in GC (→GE1) & GE3

4 digits in FE & EE2 (→EE3)

No fingering in EE1

6 digits in GE2
..

In the main text we give the complementary fingering of GC (→GE1) and FE and EE, although it is possible that it was only the latter that was given by Chopin, as the copyist, having in front of him these four numerals, could have mistaken the figures and, after having correctly written the first two ones, could have added the last three four semiquavers further. In GE2, the third numeral was added in bar 45, whereas in GE3, the alleged return to the version of GE1 can be a result of the blurry imprint of this numeral.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC