mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Omission of current key accidentals

b. 23

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

..

Lack of the natural raising c to c in A is Chopin's patent oversight.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 23

composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major

..

In some of the sources the notation of accidentals in this bar is less accurate, which, however, does not influence the clarity of the text. In A and FE, all the necessary accidentals before the lowest notes of particular groups in the R.H. and top notes in the L.H. are missing. The same probably applies also to CDP, although it is hard to conclusively state due to a serious mistake committed by the copyist in this place. The notation of AI is more precise – Chopin wrote there both naturals raising d1 to d1. In turn, the situation in EE is just the opposite – it is exactly these naturals that are missing. GE added all the necessary signs.

 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals

b. 23-26

composition: Op. 25 No 4, Etude in A minor

..

In A (→FE) there are no flats before the e notes in bars 23-25, e1 in the R.H. in bars 24-26 and e1 in the L.H. in bar 25. FC completed only the first of the aforementioned signs (in bar 23), while EE – the first and the last. The notation of GE1 is more accurate – only the sign before e1 is missing in the L.H. in bar 25. The notation of EE3 was also completed, adding both missing signs in the L.H. and the first (in bar 24) in the R.H. It is only GE2 (→GE3) that features the completely correct notation.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Inaccuracies in A

b. 23

composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major

c2-a2-c3 twice in A (→FE→EE), contextual interpretation

c2-c3 twice in FC (→GE1)

d2-d3 & c2-c3 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the version of A (→FE→EE), which does not raise any doubts, in spite of the missing  lowering a2 to a2 (it was added in EE). In the notation of FC, perhaps intentionally compliant with A, the middle notes (a2) in the grace note and the following crotchet are, however, completely imperceptible, hence they were not printed in GE1. The version of GE2 (→GE3) is an arbitrary revision; originally, it was modelled after the authentic version of b. 31, yet it was implemented inattentively – the change of pitch of the grace note made the following crotchet lose the flats lowering c2-c3 to c2-c3, which should have been added in that situation.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Errors repeated in FE

b. 23

composition: Op. 28 No. 17, Prelude in A♭ major

..

A natural before the bottom note of the 1st bottom R.H. voice quaver (e1) is present only in EE, the only one in which this patent inadvertence of Chopin was corrected. Similarly, the  before the bottom note of the 2nd L.H. quaver (b), overlooked in A (→FE,FC→GE), was supplemented only in EE. As far as FCI is concerned, it is difficult to decipher the accidentals here based on the photocopy available to us – it seems that out of 3 necessary accidentals, the top one was overlooked, raising a1 to a1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Omission of current key accidentals , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE