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. 1-2

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering in A (→FE,FC→GE)

Fingering in EE

Our variant suggestion based on FEJ & FES
..

The fingering of the entire phrase comes from FEJ, and the only alternative entry in b. 1 – from FES. That fingering differentiation in those copies is most probably preserved also in identical b. 9. Anyway, it is very likely that the difference concerns only the d1 crotchet and the c1 quaver. We assume that both possibilities come from Chopin, even if they were not written by his hand. In turn, there are no grounds to consider the fingering of EE to be authentic, which we place over notes for the purpose of clarity.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

  in A (contextual interpretation→FC)

  in FE (→EE)

  in GE

No markings in CGS
..

The range of the  hairpin in b. 1 is difficult to determine in A – the top arm is much shorter than the bottom one. According to us, it is the range marked by the top arm, written first, that was intended by Chopin. It is compliant with dynamics, naturally resulting from the shape of the melodic line, and this is how it was reproduced by Fontana in FC (→GE). That interpretation is also supported by the range of the  hairpins in analog. b. 3 and 9 (as well as 23), in which the range of the top arm remains unchanged, unlike the considerable and rather accidental changeability of the bottom one. The differences in the length of the  mark in b. 2 seem to be inaccuracies (in FC, not affecting the meaning) or routine revisions (in editions).

CGS overlooked the vast majority of dynamic markings – except for two  in b. 13-14. According to us, it is an oversight of the copyist.

Similar problems and differences occur in following, similar bars 3-5, 9-11 and 23-24.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

..

In A one can see that the initial tempo marking was Largo. Cf. changes of markings in adjacent Preludes.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 7, Prelude in A major

Andantino in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE) & CGS

Lento misterioso in CXI
..

A possible authenticity of the indications of CXI remains purely hypothetical – the only assumption can be a correction, visible in A, of the initial Lento indication.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 28 No. 7, Prelude in A major

 on E in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

 on e1 in CXI

 on e1 (without ) in CGS
..

In A the  mark is written before the bass E, which, due to the significant horizontal spaces between subsequent notes, does not contribute to misunderstandings – both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) it was placed under that note. In turn, in CGS a respective mark was placed not only before the note (like in A), but also before the bar line; moreover, the e1 crotchet in the upbeat falls precisely over that mark, which already changes the meaning of that indication. Such a pedalling would be perfectly acceptable; however, it is difficult to say whether the copyist conveyed here a pedalling variant, perhaps authentic, or whether she simply inaccurately wrote the version of FE. A  mark at the beginning of the piece (written already under the time signature) appears also in CXI.

In CGS the discussed  mark is the only pedalling indication in the entire piece. Therefore, it suggests another possible explanation for such a position – placed at the beginning of the piece, the mark is just a general indication, according to which the pedalling should be natural (=harmonic).  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: No pedal release mark , Inaccuracies in CGS