mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 3-11

composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

No pedalling in A

Pedalling in FE (→GE1)

GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5)

EE

Our alternative suggestion
..

Pedalling in bar 3 and analog., added by Chopin in a proofreading of FE, is inconsistent (bars 3 and 51 have all marks, yet they are differently distributed) and partially incomplete (in bar 11 there is only the  sign at the beginning of the bar). The second  sign in bar 3, misplaced in FE (→EE), is interpreted by us as falling on the 4th quaver in the bar; it was equally recreated in GE. In the main text we give a pedalling addition in bar 11 on the basis of bar 3, a similar action was taken in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5). As an alternative solution, in both bars we propose a pedalling based on bar 51. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , No pedal release mark

b. 3-4

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

One slur in A (→GE) & EE

Two slurs in FE
..

The separated slur is most probably a result of an inaccurate reproduction of the manuscript in FE. Cf. bars 7-8.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 3-8

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Different length  in A

Longer  in FE (→GE,EE)

Shorter  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we unify the reach of the  hairpins in bars 3-4 and 7-8, following three out of four signs written in A. In FE1 the signs were unified too, however, it was the sign beginning slightly earlier in bar 4 that was adopted as the model.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 3

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

f1 tied in FE (→EE)

f1 repeated in GE
..

In FE, the f1 tie is printed slightly inaccurately, so that in GE1 (→GE2) it was misinterpreted as a slur for the bottom voice in the R.H. (in GE3, the mark was omitted).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in A (possible interpretation→FC)

  in FE (→EE)

  in GE

No markings in CGS
..

As was the case with b. 1-2, we consider the top arm of the  hairpin in A to be reliable. In all the remaining sources (except for CGS, in which the marks were overlooked), it was the range of the bottom arm that was taken into account. In the editions, both marks were extended or moved, most probably after their own, general editorial principles.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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