mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 63-64

composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Separate slurs in A

Continuous slur in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

The continuous slur possibly results from conviction by both Fontana in FC (→GE) and the engraver of FE (→EE) that the cause of slurs in A being separated is just another pause in the ink feed to the tip of the quill, as in b. 61-62 (as well as 66). In the editors' opinion the shape of the slurs rather indicates that they are intentionally separate.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 68

composition: Op. 43, Tarantella

A, GE

FC3 (→FE→IE)

No marking in EE
..

In sources the dynamic marking appears on the first beat of the bar in A and GE, on the second beat in FC3 (→FE→IE) or is missing as in (EE)  most probably as a result of imprecise notation [FC].

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 73

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Small crotchet with slur in A (→FE)

Acciaccatura without slur in FC (→GE1)

Small quaver with slur in EE

Acciaccatura with slur in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The only undoubtedly authentic notation is the notation of A (→FE). According to us, the use of a long grace note does not influence the performance: it is most likely that it is to be performed as a short, unaccented grace note; if we take into account the slur, we may assume that it is simply an arpeggio whose bottom note does not need to be held with hand. The notation of FC may also be authentic; Chopin could have changed therein the type of the grace note used (the missing slur is almost certainly an oversight). After adding the slur, the notation with a slashed quaver (used in GE2 (→GE3) and clear in terms of performance) may be considered a rightful alternative version. The change introduced in EE is probably arbitrary.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 73-74

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

 from bar 73 (literal reading→FE→EE)

 in bar 74 in FE (→EE)
..

 is written in A in such a way that it can be combined both with the chord in the 2nd half of b. 73 and the beginning of the roulade in b. 74. According to us, if Chopin wanted it to concern b. 74, he could have entered it there to avoid any doubts. Due to the above reason, we consider the interpretation of FE (→EE) to be correct, in which the indication is in force from the middle of b. 73.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC

b. 73-76

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

Slur in A, literal reading

Slur in FC (→GE)

Slur in FE (→EE)
..

In A the range of the slur beginning in b. 74 is vague due to crossings-out. In FC Fontana considered the line that seems to prolong the slur until b. 76 to be valid. Musically speaking, it is questionable; in terms of graphics, it is questionable too, because the final fragment of that line is in the area covered by the crossings-out. The interpretation of FE is much more likely – the undeleted part of the extension of the initial slur reaches the minim in b. 75, yet that initial slur ends on the last note in b. 74. In the main text we give the literal interpretation of the notation of A, which is both pianistically and musically natural; it includes the part of the slur that was not covered by the crossings-out.
In FC (→GE) it is also the beginning of the slur that is inaccurate.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC