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. 7

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1

 in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL
..

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 7-8

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

Slur to bar 8 in A & CGS

Slur to end of bar 7 in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

The L.H. slur, which starts at the beginning of the Prelude, clearly reaches the 1st quaver in b. 8 in A. Nevertheless, both FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) considered it an inaccuracy and led the slur only to the last quaver in b. 7.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 7

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

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before e on the 2nd quaver. The accidental is written in pencil also in FC; however, it is an addition of Hermann Scholtz, a later owner of the manuscript. In GE, which also includes that , one can see that it was added at the time of proofreading the print version, since there was no place for it at the stage of laying out the text. Therefore, it is an editorial revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts

b. 7-10

composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

Rhythm & slurs in FCI

Rhythm & slurs in A

Rhythm & slur in bar 7-8 in FC (→GE)

Rhythm & continuous slur in FE (→EE)
..

The rhythm written down in FCI in b. 7 and 9 is most probably the first version. It is evidenced by corrections stemming from that same version, visible in A in b. 9. Therefore, one can conclude that FCI contains an earlier version also in b. 8 and 10 and generally later in the Prelude (b. 16-25).
In FC (→GE) a slur is present only in b. 7-8; the missing one in b. 9-10 is an oversight of the copyist. The four-bar slur of FE (→EE) is also a mistake – the engraver could have been confused by the slur of the crossed-out L.H. part written down on the top stave in b. 8.
There is no arpeggio sign in b. 8 in EE1 – the mistake was corrected in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Main-line changes

b. 7-10

composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

..

FCI does not contain any accidentals in the R.H. part in these bars. The missing sharps in b. 7 and 9 are a patent inaccuracy (formally speaking, a cautionary  in b. 10 is not indispensable due to the presence of corresponding sharps in the L.H., i.e. raising c1 to c1). Such an incomplete notation was probably present already in the lost autograph that served as the basis for this copy, since it seems unlikely that the copyist would selectively omit marks on the top stave (see also b. 16-17).
There is no  in bar 7 in FC, too – the visible accidental was pencilled in by H. Scholtz, the later owner of FC. The obvious oversight was corrected in GE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of FC