mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 1

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

in GC, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

in FE & GE1
..

The use of the  time signature is surprising only in GE1, as FE did not use the  indication in the Etudes – contrary to the manuscripts – even once, neither in Op. 25 nor in Op. 10 and in the Etude in F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1 (cf. also the Impromptu in A major, Op. 29). Anyways, the correctness and authenticity of the  time signature is undeniable with respect to the compatible version of GC and EE.
The correct time signature returned in GE2 (→GE3).
Similarly in bar 104. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Changes of metre , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , 4/4 or 2/2

b. 28

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

Crotchet rest in GC (→GE), FE & EE

Minim rest suggested by the editors
..

It does not seem that the fact of shortening this bar present in the sources – it includes only three crotchets – had any practical or expressive meaning, as it is compensated by the fermata over the final rest. Due to this fact, in the main text we suggest a minim for this rest, compatible with the time signature. Perhaps at an earlier stage of composing the Etude Chopin introduced here certain changes and did not check the rhythmic notation diligently.
The rhythmic values incompatible with the declared time signature appear in one of the autographs of the Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 No. 1, bar 67 – the bar with the 4/4 time signature is filled with a semibreve and minim.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Rhythmic errors

b. 37-38

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

Tie to c in GC (→GE) & EE

No tie in FE

Our alternative variant suggestion
..

The missing sustention of c in FE could have been intended by the composer, yet an oversight (of the engraver, copyist or Chopin himself) is also possible.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

b. 46

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

 (error) in GC (→GE1)

 in FE & EE

 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The erroneous value of the bass e – double dotted minim – written in GC (→GE1) was probably supposed to, according to Chopin's intention, provide a simultaneous decay (before the rest) of all three voices. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a relevant notation, introduced in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of GC

b. 50

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

Minim f in GC (→GE1)

Dotted minim in FE & EE

Dotted crotchet in GE2 (→GE3)
..

Lack of the dot extending the f minim in GC (→GE1) seems to be the copyist's error – in analogous bar 70 GC has a dot, it is also in both bars both in FE and EE. The version of GE2 (→GE3) is logic, yet in order to be considered compatible with Chopin's intention, one should assume that in both bars the composer committed a patent mistake in a simple situation (differently than in bar 46). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions