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. 5

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

Fingering written into FED

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

In the main text we give the fingering entered into FEJ, confirmed by a more sparing entry in FED. The addition in FES is also compliant with that fingering, although the d1-g1 notes can be performed by other fingers, e.g. 4-2. Actually, it was those digits that were initially written in FEJ in this place and changed to 2-1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ

b. 5

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

 in A (contextual interpretation) & GE

  in FC

  in FE

  in EE

No marking in CGS
..

Just like in the similar situations in b. 1 and 3, we believe that it is the top arm of the  mark in A that is more reliable. In FC Fontana averaged the length of the mark, which is one of possible solutions. We consider the mark in GE, slightly shorter than in FC, to be compliant with our interpretation of A. The mark of FE, stretched out, so that it covers an entire bar (and inaccurately reproduced in EE), is most probably a revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions

b. 5-6

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

with bass in A (→FE,FC→GE) & EE2

 under semiquaver in CXI

No markings in EE1 & CGS
..

The placement of the  mark in CXI is probably an inaccuracy. However, if the manuscript was indeed based on a lost authentic source, such a later pedal, resulting in the notes ringing out clearer further on in the bar, could have come from Chopin.
The oversight of the  mark is probably an inaccuracy of the copyist – there is a similar situation in bar 8.
The missing pedalling indications in CGS – see b. 3-4.
The oversight of the engraver of EE1 was rectified in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE

b. 5-15

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

..

There is not a single tie in CGS (b. 5-6, 8-9, 11, 15-16), which almost certainly results from an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in CGS

b. 5-13

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

..

In this Prelude Chopin generally did not use accidentals before the top notes in broken octaves – see b. 1-4. In the discussed bars, the problem concerns the following cases:

  • in b. 5 e2,
  • in b. 7 d3 and d3,
  • in b. 8 c3, c3 and b2,
  • in b. 9 b2, b2, a2, g2 and c3,
  • in b. 10, c3, c3, b2 and a2,
  • in b. 11 c3 and b2,
  • in b. 12 g2, f2 and g2,
  • in b. 13 g2, f2 and c2.

Such a notation is in A (→FC,FE), whereas EE1, EE2, GE1 and GE2 added the majority of the necessary accidentals (17, 20, 21 and 22 out of the necessary 23, respectively).

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