mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in A

b. 1

composition: WN 55, Waltz in F minor

..

In AG, Chopin did not write the time signature; the remaining sources feature a 3/4 marking.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 1-6

composition: Op. 25 No 8, Etude in D♭ major

..

Chopin's intention of providing all bass notes with staccato dots remains beyond any doubt, despite the fact that in A the last dot is missing (or it is written in an unclear manner). It is FE and GE2 (→GE3) that include the totally correct notation in this respect. In the remaining editions, the notation is more or less inaccurate – GE completely omits the dots in these bars, while EE puts them only next to a few notes, rather accidentally (one dot was omitted in each of the following bars: 1-3 and 5-6).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 1-28

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

 signs before 6th semiquaver in A

 at end of bar in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

The placement of the  asterisks in A is questionable. The marks were being entered rather hastily, while the evaluation of their intended correlation with the time course of music is hampered due to the erroneous placement of the L.H. quaver rests with respect to the R.H. semiquavers – Chopin would enter rests more or less in the middle of the 2nd half of each bar. It leads to such situations as, e.g. in b. 3 and 15, in which the  occurs before the L.H. rest (i.e. in the 1st half of the bar, actually), but under the 5th semiquaver in the R.H. Apart from a few exceptional situations, which we discuss separately (b. 13-14 and 29-32), one can state the following:

  • All  occur under the 5th semiquaver or later, whereby the majority – 15 out of 26 – concern the 6th semiquaver. Therefore, the differences are insignificant and are almost certainly accidental inaccuracies.
  • The only place where Chopin deemed it necessary to correct the already written mark – in b. 23 – concerns the  written at the end of the bar, after the 6th semiquaver; consequently, it was moved under the 5th semiquaver. According to us, Chopin most probably wanted to avoid the  combination, which most often indicates a syncopated pedal change.

In the remaining sources the pedalling is – except for a few minor inaccuracies – fully unified, with an  asterisk under the 6th semiquaver of each bar. It is generally compliant with the notation suggested by us; however, it can suggest the aforementioned continuous pedalling with changes under the bars, contrary to the intention of Chopin.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in A

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