mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 1-2

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

Long accents in A (→FC), contextual interpretation

4 short accents in FE

No marks in GE 

3 vertical accents in EE
..

The long accents written in A (→FC) were not reproduced correctly in any of the editions. Both the shorter marks in FE and their omission in GE could have been related to a very dense and not always rational vertical text layout. The change of the accents' font in EE is a revision, typical of that edition, while the omission of the third mark – an oversight.
In the main text we also include – unlike FE – the accents in b. 2, marked in the manuscripts as a repetition of b. 1. This issue is generally ambiguous, e.g. tempo/character indications are certainly not to be repeated, but slurs and pedalling marks continued in the next bars should definitely be repeated. In the case of accents, both possibilities are actually equivalent in this context – the marks are given here as a pattern and should be applied also in the next bars, hence the number of explicitly given accents (4 or 8) is insignificant (cf., e.g. the accents at the beginning of the Prelude No. 6 in B Minor or the Etude in C Major, Op. 10 No. 1). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE

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. 1-2

composition: Op. 28 No. 14, Prelude in E♭ minor

Asymmetric     in bar 1 in A, literal reading

Asymmetric     in bars 1-2 in A, contextual interpretation

Symmetric   in bar 1 in FC (literal reading→GE)

Symmetric   in bars 1-2 in FC, contextual interpretation
..

The   hairpins are of different length in A, which we reproduce in the main text. Both Fontana in FC (→GE) and the engraver of FE (→EE) considered it an inaccuracy and inserted symmetrical, half-bar marks. Moreover, including those marks in b. 2 (written in an abridged manner with •/• marks, which mean that b. 1 should be repeated) is an issue. According to us, it would be opportune to repeat those marks, as it was performed in FE (→EE), since they are an integral part of the sonic shape of this figuration. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 2

composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor

A dot in  A (→GE)

Absence of any sign in FE (→EE)
..

The absence of a staccato dot in FE (→EE) is probably due to oversight on the part of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 2-14

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

Wedges in A

Dots in FE

GE & EE
..

In bars 2-3, 5-6, 10-11 and 13-14 in the main text, we give undeniable wedges written in A (in comparison, Chopin's dots may be seen over the bass notes in bars 1, 5 and analog.). In FE a part of the marks was omitted (in bars 3, 10 and 11) and the rest was interpreted as dots. The changes, according to us, are of a clearly arbitrary nature. GE and EE generally repeat the version of FE, yet they include a dot also in bar 3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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