mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

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. 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. 16

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

No hairpins in As & EE1

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in FC (→GE) & EE2

  in FE

  in CGS
..

The range of the   hairpins in A is unclear, since the  is written at the end of the line, practically already beyond the bar line. In spite of that, diminuendo must concern also b. 16, since at the beginning of b. 17 we can already see a new sign – . This is how it was interpreted both in FC (→GE) and FE (with a slight difference in the range), and this is the interpretation we give in the main text. The absence of the marks in EE1 is most probably a mistake of the engraver, rectified in EE2 on the basis of a comparison with GE1, which is indicated by the compliance of the range of the marks. The hairpins in CGS are most probably inaccurately outlined marks of FE.

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

issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 16

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

 with [] in As & A (→FC), interpretation

in FE (→EE), GE & CGS
..

The vertical line in the symbol used by Chopin to mark the grupetto indicates that the bottom note of the ornament should be raised (cf. the Nocturne in D Major, Op. 27 No. 2, b. 7). As augmented seconds are not used in grupetti, it is almost certain that Chopin did not mean g1 to be formally altered to g1, but wanted to indicate that the bottom note falls at the interval of a minor, and not major second, which results in g1 as the intended note. FE (→EE) and GE did not reproduce the Chopinesque symbol accurately nor marked that the bottom note should be altered. In the main text we reproduce the Chopinesque notation in a contemporary form.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Turn

b. 16-19

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

stretto - - - in A

stretto - - - in FC

stretto - - - in GE

stretto - - - in FE

stretto - - - in CGS
..

In the notation of A it is not entirely clear where Chopin wanted to begin stretto or how far the dashes marking its range are supposed to reach. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the remaining sources reproduce those details differently, which we consider inaccuracies, with the exception of the version of GE, in which the dashes are led as far as to the beginning of b. 19, which is clearly contrary to the notation of FC. In the main text we assume that stretto is to be combined rather with g2 than a1 and that the dashes reach f1 in b. 18. The major divergence from the Chopinesque notation is to be seen in CGS, in which stretto is written in the middle of the 1st half of b. 16 and the dashes only just in the 2nd half of b. 17, as a result of which it is actually unclear how they are to be considered jointly (in that copy, just like in FE, the entire indication is placed between the staves). It was probably caused by lack of space between the staves.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A , Errors in CGS

b. 16-17

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

No slur in As & FC (→GE)

Slur to end of bar 16 in A (contextual interpretation) & CGS

Slur to bar 17 in A (possible interpretation→FE→EE)
..

In A b. 16 ends the line, while the L.H. slur, going clearly beyond the end of the bar, suggests a continuation. However, there is no ending of that slur in b. 17, hence it is unclear whether Chopin forgot to enter it or whether it is the ending of the slur in b. 16, written with a flourish (cf. e.g. the Scherzo in B Minor, Op. 31, b. 60, 369), that is inaccurate. There is also a possibility that Chopin changed the concept of the slur after having added an octave at the beginning of b. 17 – one can see a crossing-out over the initial version of the 1st quaver in A; it could have concerned the ending of the slur. In the main text we give a slur reaching the end of b. 16; the version of FE (→EE) can be, however, considered an acceptable variant.
The shorter slur of CGS is probably an inaccuracy.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation