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

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

..

The Prelude in E is the only piece by Chopin in which the R.H. part is written entirely in the bass clef on the top stave*. It is noteworthy that the composer opted for such a notation probably only just when writing A, which is evidenced by a bass clef added after the treble one and by the 1st R.H. chord, written and crossed out on the bottom stave. Therefore, one can assume that in the initial notation of the Prelude the entire R.H. part (perhaps without the topmost notes) was written on the bottom stave, in accordance with the Chopinesque common modus operandi – cf., e.g. Prelude in E Minor, No. 14 or Scherzo in C Minor, Op. 39, b. 1-6 and 9-14, 486-497 and 502-505. The above hypothesis is confirmed by the notation of the L.H. part – the stems of the entire part, even in the lowest register, point downwards (we do not keep it in our transcriptions). An understandable habit of beginning the top stave with a treble clef came out at the beginning of the 3rd and 4th lines of the text – in A one can see there crossings-out of fragments of treble clefs, with which Chopin wanted, as a matter of course, to open a new line.

* In general, Chopin carefully avoided introducing the bass clef on the upper staff. There are only a few examples of such notation, e.g. Variations in B, Op. 2, bars 50-51, 302-303, Polonaise in A, Op. 53, bars 153-154.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Deletions in A

b. 1-4

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

Slurs in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

No slurs in CGS
..

In CGS there are no L.H. slurs in these bars (nor in the next ones, until b. 9). See b. 5-12.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in CGS

b. 1-14

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

Long accents in A, contextual interpretation

& accents in FC (→GE)

 in FE (→EE)
..

The  marks in b. 1-2 and analog. are of different length in A; however, the differences are clearly of an accidental nature, hence we unify them in the main text. At the same time, we give them the form of long accents, taking into account, above all, the graphical factor – it is shorter marks that definitely prevail, which can be considered long accents – and the practical factor – in the Allegro molto tempo, each such a fast succession of short diminuendoes, unless we combine them in one, two-bar long (which would have been certainly written differently), comes down to accents.

The markings in the remaining sources also indicate that attempts were made to unify them, although in the case of FC (→GE), the first two passages are provided with clearly longer marks than the subsequent ones. Those versions can be considered an acceptable interpretation of the notation of A.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 1

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

 in A (literal reading→FE→EE)

Long accent in A, contextual interpretation

in FC (→GE)
..

Actually, the  mark written in A encompasses the entire opening sextuplet. However, some of the subsequent marks, which, according to us, are to be interpreted as long accents regardless of their factual length, are of a similar length, which makes us consider this mark to be a long accent too. Naturally, the literal interpretation may be regarded as an equal variant. The mark in FC (→GE), quite significantly shortened, could have resulted from the copyist's conviction about the need to unify this and the subsequent marks.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 1-14

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

Arpeggio signs in A (→FE→EE)

No signs in FC (→GE)
..

The omission of 9 out of 20 arpeggios in b. 1-2 and analog. in FC (→GE) resulted from inadvertence, perhaps haste of the copyist. Characteristically, 8 of these oversights fall on the second part of the piece, b. 9-10 and 13-14.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC