mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 1

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

 in A (→FE) & GE2 (→GE3)

 in #CF

 in GE1 & EE
..

According to us, placing  in A only at the beginning of bar 1 is an example of Chopin's using a manner of putting the indications inside, and not at the beginning of, the area of their validity, which is not used at all today. It is also possible that Chopin feared the suggestion that the indication refers only to the L.H., yet this risk also seems to be negligible in our times. In FC Fontana put the sign slightly earlier, so that in GE1 it was printed at the very beginning of the piece. The interpretation was reviewed in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC , Centrally placed marks

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. 1-14

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

Long accents in A, contextual interpretation

& accents in FC (→GE)

 in FE (→EE)
..

The  marks in b. 1-2 and analog. are of different length in A; however, the differences are clearly of an accidental nature, hence we unify them in the main text. At the same time, we give them the form of long accents, taking into account, above all, the graphical factor – it is shorter marks that definitely prevail, which can be considered long accents – and the practical factor – in the Allegro molto tempo, each such a fast succession of short diminuendoes, unless we combine them in one, two-bar long (which would have been certainly written differently), comes down to accents.

The markings in the remaining sources also indicate that attempts were made to unify them, although in the case of FC (→GE), the first two passages are provided with clearly longer marks than the subsequent ones. Those versions can be considered an acceptable interpretation of the notation of A.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 1

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

 in A (literal reading→FE→EE)

Long accent in A, contextual interpretation

in FC (→GE)
..

Actually, the  mark written in A encompasses the entire opening sextuplet. However, some of the subsequent marks, which, according to us, are to be interpreted as long accents regardless of their factual length, are of a similar length, which makes us consider this mark to be a long accent too. Naturally, the literal interpretation may be regarded as an equal variant. The mark in FC (→GE), quite significantly shortened, could have resulted from the copyist's conviction about the need to unify this and the subsequent marks.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 1-2

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

Slur from f to c1 in A

Slur from B1 to c1 in FC (→GE)

Slur from f to B in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the slur of FE (→EE), since the vast majority of subsequent slurs, present in a similar context, is led to the 1st quaver in the next bar in A – out of 13 slurs in b. 1-12 and 15, it is only the slurs in b. 1, 8 and 10 that end on the 6th quaver; two (in b. 6 and 9) are ambiguous. We consider all the above slurs to be inaccurate, since the differences in the range of slurs are not related to the structure of motifs, e.g. the shorter slurs in b. 1 and 8 are opposed by the longer ones in similar figures in b. 2 and 7. Moreover, in A one can see corrections – the slurs in b. 4-5 and 5-6 were being extended (in b. 3-4 probably too). Along with the crossed-out staccato dot at the beginning of b. 2, it may indicate that the concept of markings of those figures changed from  to . Consequently, the aforementioned shorter slurs would be uncorrected elements of the initial slurring.
The slur beginning from the 1st quaver is an inaccuracy of Fontana, repeated in the next three bars too.   

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Corrections in A , FE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Inaccuracies in FC