mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 76

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

Dotted minims in A & FE2

Minims in FC (→GE), FE1 & EE1

Minim & crotchet in EE2
..

The distinct dots prolonging the d1-f1 third are overlooked in both FC (→GE) and FE1. They are restored in FE2, but omitted again in EE1, possibly by analogy with b. 80. The third added on the 4th beat in EE2 accounts for an arbitrary revision presumably aiming at complementing the supposedly missing rhythmic value, with reference to bars 1 and 20.
Similarly in b. 80.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 80

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

Dotted minims in A

Minims in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE1)

Minim & crotchet in EE2
..

Similarly to b. 76, both FC (→GE) and FE (→EE1) omitted the dots prolonging the d1-f1 third, and EE2 arbitrarily repeated it on the 4th beat.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 86

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

Pedalling in A, literal reading

FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)

Our suggestion
..

The interpretation of pedal markings in this bar presents difficulties. The  sign occurs before the 2nd beat, and the  sign seems to pertain to the 3rd beat, which we give as the literal reading. However, the slight distance between the signs does not suggest a gap in pedalling. The remaining sources interpreted this as a pedal change in the middle of the bar, which may be considered justified in the light of the above observations. In the editors' opinion, the pedal change should be linked rather with the d1 suspension being resolved to c1, and therefore, we suggest the appropriate notation in the main text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 92

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

..

In FC and FE there is no  raising b to b in the 2nd half of the bar. This patent inaccuracy was corrected in GE and most probably in EE, as the defect was present probably in all Stichvorlage manuscripts. The sharp added in FE2 before the 11th semiquaver was probably an attempt to correct this inaccuracy, a doubly failed attempt – the sign was added three semiquavers too late and at a wrong pitch.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 109

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Lombard rhythm in FC (→GE) & EE

Quavers in FE
..

No traces of corrections do not allow to indicate which rhythm is later, while from the stylistic point of view, both versions seem to be equal. In the main text, we give the version of the base source, i.e. FE.
In FC, there is no dot extending the last note in the R.H., which was corrected in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC