mUltimate Chopin

Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

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. 89

composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

A1 in #C (→GE) & EE3

B1 in FE & EE2 (→EE3)
..

The version with A1, present in GC (→GE) and EE3, is almost certainly erroneous:

  • while copying 8 groups 4 semiquavers each in bars 89-90, the copyist, instead of the fourth, fifth and sixth group (the lowest notes B1, A1, E1), rewrote the fifth, sixth and seventh (A1, E1, A1);
  • the mistake was then noticed, yet only partially – two erroneous notes in bar 90 were corrected, yet A1 in bar 89 was left without correction. It is not certain who performed this correction – certain graphical features of the added A1 note at the beginning of bar 90, as well as the way in which the 5th note of this bar was "remade" are characteristic rather for Gutmann.

In the version of FE and EE1 (→EE2), which we give, the accentuated bass notes create a rhythmically simplified base motif of the Etude in bars 89-90: .

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of GC , Alterations in GC

b. 89-91

composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

No markings in GC (→GE) & EE

Pedalling in FE
..

The pedalling of these bars, present only in FE, was probably added by Chopin at the time of proofreading this edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 92

composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

in GC & GE2 (→GE3)

No indication in FE, GE1 & EE
..

The marcatissimo indication is written in GC in such a way that it can be combined with the end of the scale in bar 95. Perhaps it was uncertainty concerning the correct placement that was the reason of its omission in GE1 (or maybe also in FE or EE, as the indication in GC is written with the copyist's hand and it had to be in at least one of the remaining Stichvorlage manuscripts).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 93

composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

 in GC

 in FE

 in GE & EE
..

The sources do not clearly indicate where Chopin wanted to put . In the main text we give the indication on the basis of GC, in which it was Chopin himself that wrote it. It can also be seen that it was a correction – the same indication, written by the copyist slightly lower, was crossed out. The interpretation of both the entry and correction is, however, difficult – we do not know whether the indication should concern the 1st beat of the bar or be valid only from the second one or if it should concern only or more the R.H. or the entire chords. According to us, each of the source versions can be considered to be justified, both graphically and musically. The solution adopted in the main text refers to the more graphically clear situation in bar 83. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections in GC

b. 95

composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

..

In GC, due to the too early beginning of the octave sign, used to write the final fragment of the part of the passage in the R.H., two notes – f2 and g2 – are written one octave higher than it results from the logic of the musical course. GE1 not only did leave the mistake, but it embraced one note more (e2) with the octave sign. The correct text was introduced only in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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