Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 1-3

composition: Op. 19, Bolero

..

In FE there are no separate fermatas for the octaves in the L.H. The marks were added by the revisers of GE and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 1

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Wedge in Afrag & A1

Staccato dot in FE (→EE) & GE

..

In the main text we give a wedge as the staccato mark over the 1st quaver in the R.H. Wedge is present in both preserved autographs, i.e. Afrag and A1. We do so because the engraver of GE1 reproducing the notation of [A2] inaccurately seems to be more likely than a change of this detail while writing [A2] (an example of such an inaccuracy is FE1, in which dots are present wherever A1 clearly features wedges).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges

b. 1-5

composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major

Long accents in A1 & GE1

Short accents in FE (→EE) & GE2

..

In the main text we give 5 long accents placed between the staves, which corresponds to the unequivocal notation of A1. The notation of GE1 is generally compliant with the above, although it is difficult to say conclusively whether they are short or long accents on the basis of GE1 only; anyway, they are slightly longer than the majority of the accents in the middle section of the Mazurka. The version of the remaining editions, with short accents over the top stave, must be a result of routine revision: the engravers of FE and GE2 reproduced the marks in the same manner, yet independently. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , 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. 6, Prelude in B minor

  in A (contextual interpretation→FC)

  in FE (→EE)

  in GE

No markings in CGS

..

The range of the  hairpin in b. 1 is difficult to determine in A – the top arm is much shorter than the bottom one. According to us, it is the range marked by the top arm, written first, that was intended by Chopin. It is compliant with dynamics, naturally resulting from the shape of the melodic line, and this is how it was reproduced by Fontana in FC (→GE). That interpretation is also supported by the range of the  hairpins in analog. b. 3 and 9 (as well as 23), in which the range of the top arm remains unchanged, unlike the considerable and rather accidental changeability of the bottom one. The differences in the length of the  mark in b. 2 seem to be inaccuracies (in FC, not affecting the meaning) or routine revisions (in editions).

CGS overlooked the vast majority of dynamic markings – except for two  in b. 13-14. According to us, it is an oversight of the copyist.

Similar problems and differences occur in following, similar bars 3-5, 9-11 and 23-24.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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