mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 1-5

composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major

Long accents in A1 & GE1

Short accents in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

In the main text we give 5 long accents placed between the staves, which corresponds to the unequivocal notation of A1. The notation of GE1 is generally compliant with the above, although it is difficult to say conclusively whether they are short or long accents on the basis of GE1 only; anyway, they are slightly longer than the majority of the accents in the middle section of the Mazurka. The version of the remaining editions, with short accents over the top stave, must be a result of routine revision: the engravers of FE and GE2 reproduced the marks in the same manner, yet independently. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , GE revisions

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 1, Prelude in C major

in A (→FC,FE →EE)

in GE
..

It is difficult to explain the origin of the version of GE –  in FC is clear, which practically excludes misinterpretation; moreover, there is no reason why the engraver or reviser would have needed to change that indication (Chopin did not participate in the creation of GE). Chopin would generally use mezza voce to determine the grade of dynamics between   and , usually written down as m.v. The uncommon indication  was written in A in a similar manner, i.e. as m.f., which we reproduce only in the graphical transcription (the version "transcription"). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 1-5

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

Pedalling in A, contextual interpretation

Pedalling in FC

Pedalling in FE (→EE)

Pedalling in GE
..

The differences between the sources result from mistakes and inaccuracies of both the copyist and the engravers of FE and GE. However, the issues concerning the decipherment and the interpretation of A were caused by, e.g. a dense notation, without spaces between the staves – actually, in A there is no space for pedalling markings, added later, which resulted in them being placed inaccurately at times. The interpretation of A given in the main text corrects the position of the  marks in b. 1-2 and 5 – according to us, in A they are placed before the notes they concern, i.e. A (cf. the markings in analogous figures in b. 3-4) or D. We also move the  marks, which precede them, accordingly. See also b. 17 and 18-20.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 1-2

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

  in A (contextual interpretation→FC)

  in FE (→EE)

  in GE

No markings in CGS
..

The range of the  hairpin in b. 1 is difficult to determine in A – the top arm is much shorter than the bottom one. According to us, it is the range marked by the top arm, written first, that was intended by Chopin. It is compliant with dynamics, naturally resulting from the shape of the melodic line, and this is how it was reproduced by Fontana in FC (→GE). That interpretation is also supported by the range of the  hairpins in analog. b. 3 and 9 (as well as 23), in which the range of the top arm remains unchanged, unlike the considerable and rather accidental changeability of the bottom one. The differences in the length of the  mark in b. 2 seem to be inaccuracies (in FC, not affecting the meaning) or routine revisions (in editions).

CGS overlooked the vast majority of dynamic markings – except for two  in b. 13-14. According to us, it is an oversight of the copyist.

Similar problems and differences occur in following, similar bars 3-5, 9-11 and 23-24.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 1-4

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

..

In the figurations featuring the interval of an octave, Chopin would often be satisfied with an accidental placed only next to the first note constituting that interval (cf., e.g. the Etude in A Major, Op. 10 No. 10, b. 5-8 or the Ballade in F Major, Op. 38, b. 48). In the Prelude in F Minor, such an extended validity of accidentals is a strictly observed rule – accidentals are absent even in the places where they are necessary to cancel the previous alteration (e.g. on the 2nd demisemiquaver on the 3rd beat of b. 4), while in b. 8 Chopin actually crossed out the necessary accidental next to the 2nd demisemiquaver in the 3rd figure. In the discussed bars, apart from the situation in b. 4 mentioned above, the problem concerns the 8th demisemiquaver in the 3rd group in b. 1-2 and 4, the 8th demisemiquaver in the 1st, 2nd and 4th groups in b. 3 and the 2nd demisemiquaver on the 3rd beat of b. 3. Such a notation is to be found in A (→FC,FE→EE1), whereas EE2, GE1 and GE2 added the majority of the necessary accidentals (5, 6 and 7 out of the eight necessary, respectively).
The L.H. quavers falling an octave lower than the first semiquaver of a given figure provided with an accidental are written down in a similar way, without the necessary accidentals – see b. 3-4.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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