mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

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. 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

b. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

Long accent in A

No mark in FC (→GE)

 in FE (→EE)
..

The missing accent in FC (→GE) resulted from the distraction of the copyist, who overlooked the marks from the entire first line of A. In FE (→EE) this long accent was reproduced as a half-bar diminuendo hairpin, which more or less corresponds to the length of the mark in A, but does not include the fact that it should be placed under the a1 crotchet only.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of FC

b. 4-5

composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor

Slur in A (literal reading)

Slur in A (interpretation→GE→FE)

Possible reading of slurs in FE (→EE)
..

Strictly speaking, the slurs in A may be read in two different ways. The interpretation of GE adopted in the main text underlines both the continuity of the musical thought from the beginning of the work and the moment when the actual theme begins. The same idea was probably behind the imprecise notation of FE, yet it was interpreted differently in EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A

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. 4-12

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

..

In A in bar 4 (and bar 12, which repeats this bar) the  hairpins embrace with their range the 2nd and 3rd chords in the bar. This is how it was more or less reproduced in FE, yet minor inaccuracies caused that in GE the sign in bar 12 was given a form of an accent, while in EE in both bars it was printed one quaver too early.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies