mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in A

b. 13

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A (probable interpretation) & GE2no2

 in A, possible interpretation

 in FE (→EEC,GE1no2,GE1op→GE2op→GE3op)

in EEW
..

The range of the  hairpin written in A is unclear – the top arm seems to be much longer than the bottom one. The respective sign in FE (→EEC, the majority of GE) perhaps corresponds to the range of the bottom arm of the hairpin of A. In the main text, we suggest an averaged range of the sign, which then leads to the topmost note of the melody; a similar length of the sign is also – as a result of revision – in GE2no2. Alternatively, one can take into account the top arm, written probably first – such a longer hairpin determines the peak of crescendo practically at the beginning of the next bar. The lack of continuation of the sign in bar 13 in EEW results almost certainly from the division into great staves – in this edition bar 13 opens a new line.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 13

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Slur from 2nd quaver in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

Slur from 1st quaver in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Deletions made Chopin rewrite the part of the L.H. on an adjacent stave. In the new notation of the 1st half of the bar, the slur embraces only three quavers (starting from the second). Above the deleted original version there is, however, a slur embracing four quavers, so theoretically one can ponder which one (or maybe both?) is valid. The legible original notation shows that the changes concerned the bass note only, which was initially an A, which explains the fact of embracing the entire figure with one slur. After moving the bass one octave lower, one can take for granted that Chopin left the longer slur by inadvertence only. This is how it was interpreted in GE2, yet in GE1 (→FE→EE) a half-bar slur was adopted.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 13

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

 in A, more likely reading

 in A, less likely reading

No sign in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In view of the deletions in A one can understand that the engraver of GE (→FE→EE) omitted the  sign written there. However, the deletions clearly concern the L.H. part only, and not the hairpin, hence we include it in the main text. The range of the sign is also questionable, since the upper arm is clearly shorter than the lower one. It is a frequent situation in Chopin's autographs, however, generally it is the context or similar places that allow us to guess the composer's intention. In this case, leading crescendo makes sense both to the top most note of the passage and to the minim in the next bar: it is confirmed by the notation of analogous bars 32 and 81, in which the hairpin reaches the top most note in one case and the end of the bar in the other one. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 13-14

composition: Op. 28 No. 1, Prelude in C major

 before 4th semiquaver in A, literal reading

 under 6th semiquaver in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)

 before 6th semiquaver suggested by the editors
..

In these bars the  asterisks are written closer to the beginning of the bar than in the remaining ones (cf. the note on b. 2-28) – the marks are placed at the end of the 1st half of the bar both with respect to the L.H. and the R.H. parts. It is striking that such a position of the  marks was not reproduced either in FC (→GE) or in FE (→EE). It suggests that at this point of the manuscript both the copyist and the engraver were already convinced of the accidental nature of even the more distinct differences in the position of the  marks. Taking into account the homogeneous texture of the Prelude and the close correlation of pedalling with the sound of the principal one-bar figure, we assume that such an explicit divergence from the pedalling markings of the remaining bars is highly unlikely. Due to this reason, in the main text we give pedalling markings analogous to the ones used by Chopin in the remaining bars, considering the actual notation of A an acceptable variant, although probably unintended by Chopin. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 13

composition: Op. 28 No. 19, Prelude in E♭ major

..

In A there is no  lowering g1 to g1 in the 1st triplet and no  raising f1 to f1 in the 3rd triplet. What is more, the crossing-out before the first note suggests that Chopin crossed out the initially written  (see b. 29). The accidentals were added in GE and EE2 (in EE1 only the ). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE