mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 12

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

 in A & GE

 in FC & CGS

 in FE (→EE)
..

The  mark is written in A inaccurately – the top arm is clearly shorter than the bottom one. We assume the top one, written first, to be reliable. The starting point of the mark raises other doubts – strictly speaking, it is difficult to reconcile a long accent over c1 with a crescendo beginning from this very note. Consciously or not, that aspect was taken into account by the copyists independently – both in FC and CGS the mark begins from the next quaver. In general, that mark was reproduced strictly in accordance with the Stichvorlage only in EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 13-14

composition: Op. 28 No. 1, Prelude in C major

 before 4th semiquaver in A, literal reading

 under 6th semiquaver in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)

 before 6th semiquaver suggested by the editors
..

In these bars the  asterisks are written closer to the beginning of the bar than in the remaining ones (cf. the note on b. 2-28) – the marks are placed at the end of the 1st half of the bar both with respect to the L.H. and the R.H. parts. It is striking that such a position of the  marks was not reproduced either in FC (→GE) or in FE (→EE). It suggests that at this point of the manuscript both the copyist and the engraver were already convinced of the accidental nature of even the more distinct differences in the position of the  marks. Taking into account the homogeneous texture of the Prelude and the close correlation of pedalling with the sound of the principal one-bar figure, we assume that such an explicit divergence from the pedalling markings of the remaining bars is highly unlikely. Due to this reason, in the main text we give pedalling markings analogous to the ones used by Chopin in the remaining bars, considering the actual notation of A an acceptable variant, although probably unintended by Chopin. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 13-18

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

dim. - - to bar 18 in A

dim. - - to bar 18 in FC

dim. - - to bar 17 in FE (→EE) & CGS

dim. - - to bar 17 in GE
..

The indication dim. - - is written in A (→FC→GE) over the top stave. As in this context it must concern the L.H. too, we place it in a standard position, i.e. between the staves. In the main text we reproduce the range of the indication after the literal interpretation of A. The further range of diminuendo in FC is an inaccuracy that occurred at the stage of reproducing A, although the notation of A does not rule out that it could have actually been Chopin's intention. In the editions the dashes marking the range of the indication end in b. 17, which is an inaccuracy resulting most probably from a different division of the text into great staves – both in the manuscripts and the editions the indication was led to the last bar of the great stave, which is b. 18 in A and FC and b. 17 in the editions.
The minor shift of the starting point of the indication in GE was an arbitrary action of the engraver.
In EE the word diminuendo was divided into syllables, which was a frequent procedure in that edition. The crossings-out visible in A show that in this case Chopin considered such a notation to be wrong for some reason.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

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

b. 13-15

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

No slur in As & #KGS

Slur in A (→FE→EE)

Slur to end of bar 15 in FC
..

In b. 15, at the end of the line, Fontana ambiguously ended the slur in FC – the slur goes quite far beyond the last written-down chord, which could suggest a continuation, yet it does not even reach the end of the line, which suggests that the slur should end. As the ending of the slur was overlooked on a new line, in GE the slur was led only to the last written-down chord – the minim (with a quaver tremolo marking) at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar.

The missing slur in CGS is an oversight of the copyist, who overlooked the majority of the L.H. slurs in the second half of the Prelude. The fact that she wrote the final fragment of that slur, encompassing b. 16, is an unquestionable evidence of distraction. See also b. 17-23. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FC , Errors in CGS

b. 13

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

f1 in A (→FE→EE) & FC (probable reading)

f1-g1 in GE
..

The version of GE resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the illegible correction concerning the pitch of this note in FC – the copyist most probably first wrote g1 and then turned it into f1, as a result of which both the 2nd line and the 1st space are covered. A correction (crossing-out) is also visible in A, in which, however, it almost certainly concerned rhythm – Chopin pondered whether to write the discussed note as a minim.

The pencilled correction of the wrong clef (bass) visible in FC at the beginning of the bar – it opens the line in this manuscript – as well as a possible crossing-out of one of the notes (rather the bottom one, hence f1) on the 2nd L.H. quaver were performed by a later owner of FC, i.e. Hermann Scholtz.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Deletions in A , Inaccuracies in FC , Alterations in CF