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. 8

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

No fingering in A (→FE,FC→GE)

Fingering in EE
..

Nothing indicates that the fingering in EE could have come from Chopin.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 8

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

Quaver in A (→FC), contextual interpretation (→FE→EE)
..

The chord in the R.H. part in A (→FC→GE) is a crotchet, which, along with the rests filling 5 quavers, adds up to 7 quavers. The way the R.H. part is distributed over the R.H. shows that the excess rhythmic values are to be looked for on the 2nd or 3rd quaver – either Chopin forgot to write a quaver flag to the stem of the chord or he unnecessarily wrote a rest over the 3rd L.H. quaver. In the editors' opinion the former – an erroneous oversight of one element of notation – is more likely than the latter – entering a superfluous rest. Adding a quaver flag is also how this passage was corrected in FE (→EE).
GE repeated the mistaken rhythm after FC, and what is more, erroneously placed all 3 rests following the chord in the 2nd half of the bar, over the 3 L.H. octaves (the identical error in distribution.of rests was also comitted in FE).

The erroneous notation of the sources is reproduced in the graphic transcription ("transcript" version). In the content transcription ("edited text") we interpret the text of A, FC and FE in accordance with the correction introduced in FE, and the text of GE the alternative way.

The chord in the R.H. part in A (→FC→GE) is a crotchet, which, along with the rests filling 5 quavers, results in 7 quavers. The mistake was corrected in FE (→EE) by adding a quaver flag to the stem of the chord. We also believe that the notation should be corrected like that:

  • such a rhythm results from the way the L.H. part is written under the R.H., especially in the 1st half of the bar;
  • an erroneous oversight of one element of notation – a quaver flag – seems to be more likely than entering a superfluous or wrong rest.
Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of A , FE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

b. 8-9

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

Slur from semiquaver in A (→FE,FC→GE)

Slur from crotchet in EE
..

The inaccurate, later starting point of the slur in EE is most probably a mistake of the engraver.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies

b. 8-11

composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major

Slurs from 2nd to 6th quaver in A, literal reading

Slurs from 1st to 6th quaver in FC (→GE)

Slurs from 2nd quaver to next bar in FE (→EE)

Slurs from 2nd quaver to next bar suggested by editors
..

When interpreted literally, 3 consecutive slurs of A reach only the last quaver in the bar; moreover, the starting point of the slur in b. 9 is also not entirely clear (we assume that it is the 2nd quaver). Due to the reasons discussed in b. 1-2, we consider them to be inaccurate; in the main text we generally adopt the slurs of FE (→EE), compliant with the manner in which Chopin would correct in A some slurs in similar figures. In b. 9-10 the notation of the topmost L.H. notes on the top stave and writing them closer to the b1 minim opens an additional interpretation of the L.H. slur as reaching that minim. We include that possibility in the main text, regarding the version of FE (→EE) as an equal variant.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 8-12

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

d1 in A (literal reading→FC,FE) & CGS

d1 in AB, ACh, GE, EE & FES
..

The missing  restoring d1 is almost certainly an oversight of Chopin in A (→FC,FE), which is proven by the naturals in AB, ACh and the one added in b. 8 in FES. The accidentals were also added by the revisers of GE and EE.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , Errors repeated in FE