mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 23-25

composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

Slurs in GC, literal reading

Slurs in GC (contextual interpretation→GE1)

Slurs in FE

Slur in EE & GE2 (→GE3)
..

According to us, GE1 correctly acknowledged that the longer slurs of GC were supposed to replace the shorter, according to Chopin, written under them and probably earlier. It is indicated by the addition of accents, which may be considered as an equivalent of shorter slurs in bar 24. Therefore, we give this version in the main text, however, one has to admit that it is the slurs of FE that display higher compatibility with the structure of motifs, as the last two triplets in bar 24 constitute a shortened version of the earlier, six-note motifs in bar 23 and in the 1st half of bar 24. The slur of EE may also be authentic.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 25

composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

g-f1 in GC

f-f1 in FE, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

g-g1 in GE1
..

The seventh in GC is certainly erroneous, however, without comparing it to other sources, it is unclear whether the mistake concerns the bottom or top note. It is proved by the way the place was revised in GE1. In the main text we give the undoubtedly correct text of FE, EE and GE2 (→GE3).

We add cautionary sharps before F1-F and f-f1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 26

composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

E in GC, FE, EE1 (→EE2) & GE2 (→GE3)

E in GE1 & EE3
..

In GC, FE and EE there are no accidentals before the 9th quaver, so it is not entirely clear whether it is to be read as e-e1-e2-e3 or e-e1-e2-e3. The comparison with the previous bar indicates a typical for Chopin oversight of naturals returning e and e2. GE1, however, added the  raising e3 to e3, which is certainly a mistake (yet it was repeated in EE3). The correctly written text is featured only in GE2 (→GE3).

In EE1 the top note of the part of the R.H. is mistakenly written as d3. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 26-27

composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

Slur in GC (literal reading→GE1)

Slur in GC, contextual interpretation

Slurs in FE

Slurs in EE

Slur in GE2 (→GE3), possible interpretation of GC
..

In the main text we give the most natural, according to us, interpretation of the notation of GC, including Gutmann's inclination to draw (too) broad slurs – cf. the Etude in A minor, No. 11, bar 9. The slurs of FE do not raise major concerns, in turn, the broken slur in EE seems to be a result of a misunderstanding – a context interpretation of the slurring of the base text to this edition could have led to the version of GE2 (→GE3). See also the note to bar 25.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 28

composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

..

In GC, FE and EE the only accidental before the last chord in the R.H. is the cautionary  before e1. According to us, the sign is not superfluous here, contrary to the  returning f1, which was added only in GE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals