mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
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. 3-5

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

Separate slurs in As (bars 4-5)

Continuous slur in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

Separate slurs in CGS (bars 3-4)
..

The divided slurs in As are rather an evidence of Chopin's structural thinking at the time of writing down the idea of the Prelude than a performance indication. The broken slur of CGS is an inaccuracy of notation at the transition to a new line.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 3-4

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

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No fingering in A (→FE,FC→GE)

Fingering in EE

Fingering suggested by the editors, based on FES & FEJ
..

In the main text we give the fingering of FEJ, complemented at the beginning of b. 3 by the digits drawn from FES, compliant with it in the part where it is written. In FEJ one can see corrections of fingering – in b. 3, '4' was changed to '3' over the d2 semiquaver, while in b. 4 the last three notes were initially provided with the following digits: 1 2 3.We assume that the change was introduced or indicated by Chopin. The authenticity of the initial version, which is otherwise completely natural in terms of piano performance, is more problematic, and the authenticity of the indication of EE, which is compliant with it, is practically ruled out. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ

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. 3-4

composition: Op. 28 No. 7, Prelude in A major

Pedalling in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

Incomplete pedalling in CXI

No markings in CGS
..

It is either inaccuracy of the copyist or a conscious simplification of notation by George Sand (see also b. 1-2), who knew the piece well, that are probably responsible for an almost complete absence of pedalling indications in CGS (apart from the  mark at the beginning of the piece). Due to the differences in the placement of the  marks, we discuss b. 5-10 and 13 separately.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

..

As was the case in the R.H. part, in A Chopin omits accidentals next to the quavers ending the four-note L.H. figures if they fall an octave lower than one of the preceding semiquavers. In the discussed bars, such a notation was repeated without changes in FC and FE1. Both necessary naturals – before g in b. 3 and f in b. 4 – were added in EE and GE2, whereas in the remaining editions only one natural was added, in GE1 in b. 3, while in FE2 in b. 4.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE