mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccurate note pitch in A

b. 18

composition: Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

f in A (probable interpretation→FE→EE)

g in FC (→GE)
..

The bottom note of the semiquaver chord was written in A imprecisely, as a result of which it is uncertain whether Chopin meant f or g. According to us, the note is to be interpreted as f, since it covers the full width of the line – cf. a similarly placed f note a line higher, on the 2nd beat of b. 12. Fontana, as a professional musician, could have been influenced by a similar chord two bars earlier.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate note pitch in A

b. 19

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

c1-f1 in A

c1-g1 in FC (→GE), FE (→EE) & CGS
..

We give c1-f1 as the 2nd crotchet of the bottom voice, after A. The version of the remaining sources, c1-g1, is probably a mistake – both of the copyist and the engraver of FE – which could have been provoked by two factors:

  • the resemblance between b. 19 and 20;
  • a slightly higher position of the top note of the dyad in A, which may imply g1. The suggestion is enhanced by the fact that the bottom voice was horizontally moved with respect to the a1 note in the top one, as if they were supposed to constitute the interval of a second. However, having reviewed the Prelude in this respect, one realizes that similar shifts occur as a minor inaccuracy without any relation to the interval of a second – cf. the 2nd beat of b. 1, 3 or 15. Moreover, wherever Chopin wrote the c1-g1-a1 chord right away, without corrections, he wrote the bottom voice to the left-, and not the right-hand side of the quaver in the top voice (b. 15 and 20).

The fact that Chopin meant here a f1 is also supported by a stylistic argument – in analog. b. 15, featuring a B minor chord on the 3rd beat (like the discussed bar and unlike similar b. 16 and 20), a f1 was used. On the other hand, the absence of corrections in the teaching copies suggests that Chopin accepted the version with g1 during lessons, which can thus be considered an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate note pitch in A , Errors of FC

b. 20

composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major

..

The fourth semiquaver in the R.H. in A is written too low, so it resembles rather a d1 than an e1. This is how it was interpreted in GE1 (→GE1a). The erroneous d1 is also present in CDP and EE, while the visible traces in FE prove that initially also this edition included d1. It constitutes a strong argument for – indirect or direct – provenience of all these sources from A. Apart from AI and FE, the correct text is also to be found in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccurate note pitch in A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 22

composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major

 
 
..

In A the 9th quaver is written lower than, e.g., the 3rd, 6th or 12th. Therefore, it can be also interpreted as an f1. However, the concurrent FE and EE versions and the comparison with analogous bar 104 definitely advocate for g1. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccurate note pitch in A

b. 31

composition: Op. 25 No 4, Etude in A minor

..

The last dyad in the bottom voice seems to be a third in A, as the bottom note is written slightly too low. The visible in FE traces of correction prove that it actually misled the engraver and it must have been corrected in print.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccurate note pitch in A , Authentic corrections of FE