mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

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
Undo Clear

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

 in FE, literal reading

in GE

 in FE (contextual interpretation→EE)
..

In FE (→GE) the  mark is placed only in b. 6, the first in a new line. However, the manner it was placed suggests that Chopin wanted it to begin earlier, probably similarly to the hairpin in b. 7-8. This is how it was understood in EE and this is the version we give in the main text. In turn, in GE the mark was considered to have been carelessly engraved, thus it was being gradually shortened and its starting point moved towards the 1st quaver in b. 6. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 5-10

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

..

In EE the L.H. slur in b. 5 – the first in a new line – begins from the 1st quaver, although the slur in the previous bar suggests continuation. The inaccuracy was most probably a side effect of the slur in b. 5-7 having been moved under the notes (though otherwise justified, since the notation of FE is illogical here: the slur in b. 1-4 is led under the notes, whereas its continuation in b. 5-7 – above). Inconsistent slurs between lines are also present in FC and GE – slurs in the bars opening a new line (b. 6 and 10 in FC and 5 and 9 in GE) run from the 1st quaver of the bar, contrary to the notation at the end of the preceding lines. (We do not reproduce the inaccuracies of FC in our transcriptions due to a different division into great staves.)

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

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

 signs in A (→FC,FE→EE)

signs in GE
..

Except for GE, in the sources the placement of the pedal asterisks was quite accurately reproduced after A – the differences do not exceed a half of a semiquaver. In turn, the pedal in b. 5 in GE encompasses the entire bar, which deviates from the notation of FC to such an extent that one can assume a mistake, e.g. printing the  from the previous bar. The mark in b. 6 was also reproduced inaccurately, moving it towards the end of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE

b. 5-12

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

Slur in bars 5-12 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur in bars 5-8 in FC

Slurs in bars 5-6 & 7-8 in GE

Slur in bars 10-12 in CGS
..

The slur, encompassing the entire L.H. part in these bars, was reproduced incompletely in some sources, while GE reproduced it inaccurately:

  • In FC Fontana overlooked the ending of the slur in the last line of his copy (b. 9-12). Although the slur of FC suggests a continuation at the end of b. 8, GE considered it an inaccuracy and led the slur only to B1 in that bar.
  • Moreover, in GE the issue of combining the slurs in b. 6-7 remains unclear – the slur in b. 6, at the end of the line, may suggest a continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in b. 7. We assume that they are divided slurs.
  • In CGS the first L.H. slur appears only just in b. 10-12. The beginning of that slur, suggesting a continuation from the previous bar, proves a serious inadvertence of the copyist.

A slur compliant with the notation of A is to be found in FE (→EE) only. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors of FC , Errors in CGS

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

Continuous slur in A (→FC,FE→EE), AB, ACh & CGS

Separate slurs in GE
..

The notation of the slurs of FC, although generally compliant with A, may raise doubts – the ending of the slur in b. 5, which closes the line, only slightly goes beyond the bar line; therefore, the fact that the engraver of GE assumed that the slur ended in b. 5 does not actually come as a surprise, especially since the previous three slurs practically reached the bar lines.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE