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. 4

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

..

In As the  is placed at the pitch of e, and not g, which must be an inaccuracy, which can happen even in the most carefully finished autographs, e.g. in the Etude in E Minor, Op. 10 No. 6, b. 36.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information

issues: Accidental below/above the note

b. 4

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

..

In FC (→GE1) the b1-a1 semiquavers are not separated as quavers. The patent mistake of the copyist was corrected in GE2 (→GE3). See also b. 36.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC , Errors repeated in GE

b. 4

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

a1 in A (→FC→GE1), literal reading

a1 in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)
..

When interpreted literally, the version of A (→FC→GE1), in which the 4th demisemiquaver on the last beat of the bar is an a1, is most probably a mistake, although the interval structure of the four middle demisemiquavers (from the 3rd to the 6th in the eight-note figure) is strictly analogous to the seven preceding figures. It is indicated by a broader tonal context of this phrase and of the entire Prelude – the second of those four notes is never altered, while the key to which Chopin returns in the 2nd half of that bar is F minor, and not F major. A natural was added – most probably by Fontana – in FE (→EE); an identical addition was also introduced in GE2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 4-5

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

Separate slurs in A

Equivocal slurs in FC, literal reading

Continuous slur in FE (→EE), GE & CGS
..

The slurs in A are clearly divided, hence it is unclear what confused the engraver of FE (→EE) and made him not take into consideration that division. The slurring of FC is obscure – the slur in b. 4, at the end of the line, does not suggest a continuation, yet the slur at the beginning of b. 5 clearly does. Consequently, it is also GE that feature a continuous slur here.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 4

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES