Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 1

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

in GE & EE2

in FE2

in FE1 (→EE1)

..

Not being sure of the spelling of the last name of the princess, Chopin asked Fontana (in the letter dated 6 Oct. 1841)  to find it out from the princess herself or from her governess: "I don't know how Mme Czerniszew spells her name [...]: is it Tscher, or Tcher? [...], whether it is Elisabeth, and whether Tschernischef, or ff [...]". As GE and FE2 differ in that respect, it seems natural to assume that the later-published FE2 presents the spelling checked by Chopin. The dedication in EE2 was repeated after GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Dedications

b. 2

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

Grace note in FE

No grace note in GE

Grace note with slur in EE

Our suggestion

..

The lack of the grace note in GE may result from the inattention of the engraver. A sligtly bigger gap between the two first crotchets of the bar may be interpreted as the space planned to accommodate that ornament. However, this is not at all certain, as uniform spacing between the notes is not strictly adhered to in GE. Therefore we offer a variant solution. The tiny slur in EE is certainly a routine addition of the editor. 

A similar situation occurs in the Etude in F minor Op. 10 no. 9, bar 64.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 4-5

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

 in FE

GE & EE

..

The placement of the  mark in FE1 literally means that the pedal should be depressed on the last beat of bar 4, which for harmonic reasons could not be intended by Chopin. Such notation probably results from misunderstanding the autograph, in which the mark might have been placed that way due to lack of space under the very low note (C1) in bar 5. The notation of FE2, in which bar 4 ends a line of text, is definitely erroneous. EE and GE have the  placed correctly in bar 5.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 4

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

Minim g in FE (→EE1)

Dotted minim in GE & EE2

..

The notation of FE (→EE1) is less precise than the notation of GE (and EE2), probably taken from [A2]. It is not possible to determine whether that fact results from the incorrect reading of [A1] by the engraver or from the less careful notation of the autograph itself. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 5-22

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

 in FE (→EE)

Our variant suggestion

..

The placement of  marks in bars 5-6 and analogous bars (bars 5-12 and 19-22 on the same page) shows consistent discrepancies between GE and FE (→EE). In the editors' opinion, both pedalling concepts are authentic and may be used in performance practice. For that reason we give the text in which they are shown as variants. 

category imprint: Differences between sources