mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 1

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

The engraver of GE mistook the order of the digits in the metronome marking, placing '48' instead of '84.'

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Metronome tempos

b. 1

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In GE1 the last note in the L.H. is an erroneous c. The patent mistake was corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 1-5

composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

Pedalling in A, contextual interpretation

Pedalling in FC

Pedalling in FE (→EE)

Pedalling in GE
..

The differences between the sources result from mistakes and inaccuracies of both the copyist and the engravers of FE and GE. However, the issues concerning the decipherment and the interpretation of A were caused by, e.g. a dense notation, without spaces between the staves – actually, in A there is no space for pedalling markings, added later, which resulted in them being placed inaccurately at times. The interpretation of A given in the main text corrects the position of the  marks in b. 1-2 and 5 – according to us, in A they are placed before the notes they concern, i.e. A (cf. the markings in analogous figures in b. 3-4) or D. We also move the  marks, which precede them, accordingly. See also b. 17 and 18-20.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

Long accents in A (→FC), contextual interpretation

4 short accents in FE

No marks in GE 

3 vertical accents in EE
..

The long accents written in A (→FC) were not reproduced correctly in any of the editions. Both the shorter marks in FE and their omission in GE could have been related to a very dense and not always rational vertical text layout. The change of the accents' font in EE is a revision, typical of that edition, while the omission of the third mark – an oversight.
In the main text we also include – unlike FE – the accents in b. 2, marked in the manuscripts as a repetition of b. 1. This issue is generally ambiguous, e.g. tempo/character indications are certainly not to be repeated, but slurs and pedalling marks continued in the next bars should definitely be repeated. In the case of accents, both possibilities are actually equivalent in this context – the marks are given here as a pattern and should be applied also in the next bars, hence the number of explicitly given accents (4 or 8) is insignificant (cf., e.g. the accents at the beginning of the Prelude No. 6 in B Minor or the Etude in C Major, Op. 10 No. 1). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major

Staccato dot in A (→FC)

No mark in FE (→EE) & GE
..

In the main text we include the staccato dot placed in A quite high above the 1st quaver; perhaps this is the reason it was overlooked in FE (→EE). On the basis of the preserved photograph, it is difficult to conclude whether the dot was copied in FC. According to us, it is likely that it is between the ledger lines, poorly legible due to the beam in b. 41, visible through the other page.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE