mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in A

b. 12

composition: Op. 64 No 3, Waltz in A♭ major

..

In A the tie sustaining a2 in bar 12, the first in a new line of the text, was left unfinished.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 12

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt IV

..

In GC (→GE) and FE1 (→FE2→EE1) there are no naturals raising the 10th quaver to d1(2), which in this context is a patent oversight. The sign in the R.H. was added in the proofreading of FE3 (→FE4,FE5), whereas in FE5 a  was added also in the L.H. A natural in the part of the R.H. is also in Afin, in which, due to the abbreviated way of notation of the L.H., it refers to both hands.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 12

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

In the part of the L.H. in Atut, a  is present only next to d in the 1st octave. In FE, a  was added next to the bottom note of this octave, while in the remaining editions, it was added also next to d1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 12-13

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

No sign in Afrag

 in A1 (literal reading→FE1)

 in A1, contextual interpretation

in GE & EE
..

According to us, the  hairpin written in A1 is to be interpreted as ending before the  indication in b. 13. It is most likely that Chopin first wrote the top arm (perhaps before entering ) and then indicated the end of the mark with the ending of the bottom arm. Such an interpretation is confirmed by the mark of A1 in b. 36 and the notation of GE based on [A2] (in GE2 the mark was shortened with respect to GE1, which does not influence its meaning). In FE the mark was interpreted according to the length of the top arm; moreover, FE2 reproduced it inaccurately. It remains unclear how come that the mark was shortened in EE – perhaps by analogy with b. 36. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Corrections in A , EE inaccuracies , Hairpins denoting continuation , Inaccuracies in A

b. 12

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

 in A & GE

 in FC & CGS

 in FE (→EE)
..

The  mark is written in A inaccurately – the top arm is clearly shorter than the bottom one. We assume the top one, written first, to be reliable. The starting point of the mark raises other doubts – strictly speaking, it is difficult to reconcile a long accent over c1 with a crescendo beginning from this very note. Consciously or not, that aspect was taken into account by the copyists independently – both in FC and CGS the mark begins from the next quaver. In general, that mark was reproduced strictly in accordance with the Stichvorlage only in EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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