mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of FC

b. 18

composition: Op. 25 No 12, Etude in C minor

Semiquaver, no accent in FC (→GE1)

Crotchet, short accent in FE, EE & GE2 (→GE3)

Crotchet, long accent suggested by the editors
..

The missing accent and crotchet stem of the 5th semiquaver (e1) is almost certainly a result of the copyist's inattention in FC (→GE1).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 18-19

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

Slur in A (→FE→EE) & CGS

No slur in FC (→GE)
..

The absence of the L.H. slur in FC (→GE) is an oversight by the copyist – see bars 13-16.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 18

composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major

..

FC did not mark the change of clef, which was corrected in GE. The pencilled clef was added later by Hermann Scholtz.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Errors of FC

b. 18-21

composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor

   (4 bars) in A (→FE)

 in FC & EE

No markings in GE

Our suggestion
..

It cannot be ruled out that Chopin indeed envisioned the entire four-bar section being performed with one pedal, in spite of the harmonic change in b. 21. It would emphasize the unifying function of the ostinato, quartal mixture in the bass. On the other hand, it is that very constant bass motif that could have confused Chopin, who, while adding pedalling markings (in haste? – cf. the erroneous pedalling markings in the Prelude No. 19 in E Major, b. 26-27), could have been following the bass line only. Due to the above reason, in the main text we suggest a possible pedal change at the beginning of b. 21.
In FC and EE there is no  following  in b. 18 at all, while GE overlooked also the  mark, as a result of which b. 18-22 are devoid of pedalling markings.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE , Errors of FC

b. 19

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

c1-f1 in A

c1-g1 in FC (→GE), FE (→EE) & CGS
..

We give c1-f1 as the 2nd crotchet of the bottom voice, after A. The version of the remaining sources, c1-g1, is probably a mistake – both of the copyist and the engraver of FE – which could have been provoked by two factors:

  • the resemblance between b. 19 and 20;
  • a slightly higher position of the top note of the dyad in A, which may imply g1. The suggestion is enhanced by the fact that the bottom voice was horizontally moved with respect to the a1 note in the top one, as if they were supposed to constitute the interval of a second. However, having reviewed the Prelude in this respect, one realizes that similar shifts occur as a minor inaccuracy without any relation to the interval of a second – cf. the 2nd beat of b. 1, 3 or 15. Moreover, wherever Chopin wrote the c1-g1-a1 chord right away, without corrections, he wrote the bottom voice to the left-, and not the right-hand side of the quaver in the top voice (b. 15 and 20).

The fact that Chopin meant here a f1 is also supported by a stylistic argument – in analog. b. 15, featuring a B minor chord on the 3rd beat (like the discussed bar and unlike similar b. 16 and 20), a f1 was used. On the other hand, the absence of corrections in the teaching copies suggests that Chopin accepted the version with g1 during lessons, which can thus be considered an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate note pitch in A , Errors of FC