mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors repeated in EE

b. 7

composition: Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

Dotted minim in sources

Minim suggested by the editors
..

Holding the g note to the very end of the bar, as it was given in A and in all the remaining sources, is inconvenient from the pianistic point of view and practically imperceptible against the trill performed with pedal in the bass. Therefore, it is almost certainly a mistake of Chopin, who did not realize that in this bar – unlike in all analogous ones – the first note of the bar is not a part of the chord on the 3rd beat. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 7-15

composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major

..

In bars 7 and 15 the sources do not contain sharps over the mordents. There are no doubts as to the sound of the top note, while the notation is inaccurate, as usual in such situations in Chopin's works (in bar 7 it concerns only AI and GE3 due to the misplaced  mark in the remaining sources). In the versions 'edited text' and in the main text we add the absent accidentals.
There is a similar situation in bar 75.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 8-9

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

c1 repeated in Afrag & GE, possible interpretation of FE1 (→EE)

c1 tied in A1 (→contextual interpretation of FE1)

No c1 in FE2
..

It seems that Chopin abandoned the tie of c1 – in analogous b. 32-33 the tie is absent in all the sources, while in GE it is absent in all three analogous places (b. 8-9, 32-33 and 64-65). The absence of the tie in Afrag can be explained twofold (unless it is simply an oversight):

  • as testimony to Chopin's hesitation, if we consider this autograph to be earlier than A1;
  • as confirmation of abandonment of that tie, if it was written at a time when A1 had already been prepared.

In FE1 (→EE) the tie was reproduced erroneously in b. 9 – such mirror images of marks can often be found in Chopin's pieces, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 3rd mov., b. 172-173. The erroneous tie was removed in FE2; however, the correct one was not added – it may be seen as Chopin's proofreading and another argument for abandoning the tie of that note (the issue of presence of the c1 note in FE2 at the beginning of b. 9 – see the next note).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Chopin's hesitations , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 8

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

..

In A (→FC,FE→EE1) and CGS there is no  lowering b to b. Chopin's mistake, obvious in this context, was corrected in GE and EE2. The fact that Chopin was convinced of the presence of b in the preceding part of the bar is evidenced by the naturals written in A before B1 and b on the 4th beat of the bar. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 13

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

..

In A (→FC,FE→EE1) there is no accidental before the 1st note in the last group. It must be Chopin's oversight – this and the next bar constitute a cadence in C major, and an enharmonic notation of degree 1 of that key does not make sense. A respective addition in the form of a flat lowering b to b was introduced in GE and EE2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE