mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 15

composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major

Slur to  f2 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur to c2 in FC (→GE)
..

The shorter slur is an inaccuracy of Fontana, who considered the slur to be related to the triplet marking.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC

b. 15

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

Slur to 4th quaver in A

Whole-bar slur in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

The slur in A, which initially reached the 5th quaver in the bar, was shortened by Chopin by one quaver. That correction was not taken into account both by Fontana and the engraver of FE – in FC and FE the slur encompasses the entire bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 15

composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor

R.H. wedges in A

4 staccato dots in FC (→GE) & EE

3 dots in FE

4 wedges suggested by the editors
..

In this bar Chopin again marked the articulation of the chords only over the R.H. part. As the performance cannot differ from the one in b. 13-14, in the main text we add marks also under the L.H. chords. Such a solution was adopted both by FC (→GE) and FE (→EE).
In FE, the missing mark for the 1st R.H. chord must be an oversight of the engraver.
Both FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) interpreted the marks of A as staccato dots. Although they are not as pronounced as those in b. 9-12 or 14 (the R.H. mark), we consider them to be wedges.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 16-19

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

stretto - - - in A

stretto - - - in FC

stretto - - - in GE

stretto - - - in FE

stretto - - - in CGS
..

In the notation of A it is not entirely clear where Chopin wanted to begin stretto or how far the dashes marking its range are supposed to reach. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the remaining sources reproduce those details differently, which we consider inaccuracies, with the exception of the version of GE, in which the dashes are led as far as to the beginning of b. 19, which is clearly contrary to the notation of FC. In the main text we assume that stretto is to be combined rather with g2 than a1 and that the dashes reach f1 in b. 18. The major divergence from the Chopinesque notation is to be seen in CGS, in which stretto is written in the middle of the 1st half of b. 16 and the dashes only just in the 2nd half of b. 17, as a result of which it is actually unclear how they are to be considered jointly (in that copy, just like in FE, the entire indication is placed between the staves). It was probably caused by lack of space between the staves.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 16-19

composition: Op. 28 No. 14, Prelude in E♭ minor

2 signs in bars 16-19 in A

2 signs in bars 16-17 in FC (→GE)

1 sign in bars 16-19 in FE (→EE)
..

In A b. 16 ends a line, while the  hairpin ends quite clearly beyond the bar line. Perhaps this was the reason it was combined with the mark in b. 17-19, which resulted in one long . According to us, such an interpretation is unjustified, since in two previous lines the hairpins in A also go beyond the bar line, which is almost certainly merely an inaccuracy (cf. also the inaccurate, overlapping marks in b. 5-6 and 9). Therefore, in the main text we keep the separate marks, particularly since the latter begins only just on the 2nd beat of b. 17. It was also Fontana that did not reproduce the notation of A correctly, since he started writing the mark in b. 17 already at the beginning of the bar, but did not write its ending in b. 18-19.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , FE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC