Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

in FC, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

in FE & GE1

..

The use of  time signature surprises only in GE1, as in FE the  indication was not used in the Etudes – contrary to the manuscripts – at all, neither in Op. 25 nor in Op. 10 and the Etude in F minor, Dbop. 36 No. 1 (cf. also the Impromptu in A major, Op. 29). In any case, the correctness and authenticity of the  time signature is unquestionable due to the compatible version of FC and EE. The correct time signature was returned in GE2 (→GE3). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 24

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

3 long accents in FC

5 short accents in FE

Short accent in EE1 (→EE2)

3 short accents in GE1

3 short accents in GE2 (→GE3)

3 short accents in EE3

..

In the main text we give long accents, written most probably by Chopin in FC. In this copy, one can also see deletions of the previously written accents under the part of the L.H., which shows that the double accents of FE is a previous version. Lack of the signs in EE1 (→EE2) is certainly a mistake, corrected in EE3 on the basis of GE1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 33-39

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

cresc. - - in FC, FE & GE2 (→GE3)

cresc. in FE

cresc. - - in bars 33-34 in GE1

..

The twelve-bar crescendo (bars 31-42) was precisely marked in FC, EE and GE2 (→GE3). Shortening the range in GE1 is certainly a mistake of the engraver – the dashes were led only to the end of the page. The lack of dashes in FE has also to be considered an inaccuracy of notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 46

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

 in FC

 in FE

 in EE

 in GE

..

In the main text we give the hairpins on the basis of #GC, in which the range of the sign is compatible with the natural course of the music. The slightly longer hairpins of EE are probably authentic too. In turn, the sign of FE could have been shortened or moved due to the lack of possibility of its legible placement on the 2nd beat of the bar.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 71-75

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

3 long accents in FC

2 short accents in FE & EE

3 short accents in GE

..

In bars 71, 73, 75, in the main text we give long accents, placed over the bottom stave and probably written by Chopin in FC. It is not clear why this notation was not reproduced in GE – probably the notation of bars 17, 19, 23, 25, 27 and 77 was considered to be more accurate and it was generalised for all analogous bars. It cannot be excluded that the engravers of FE and EE followed this pattern, so in these editions the authenticity of the graphical shape of the accents is also uncertain.
The missing signs in bar 73 in FE and EE is most probably a result of an oversight. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of FC