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. 5-20

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

4 unslashed grace notes in As, A (→FE→EE) & CGS

4 slashed grace notes in FC (→GE)

Different grace notes in FES
..

In the main text we give the grace notes in b. 5, 10, 17 and 20 in the form of non-slashed grace notes, in accordance with the notation of A (→FE→EE). However, in this context, it does not mean a performance that would be radically different from a common, slashed grace note, which is indicated by:

  • the correction of rhythm in b. 10 visible in As, in which Chopin replaced the initially written 2 semiquavers with a grace note and a quaver;
  • the grace notes in b. 17 and 20 in FES having been slashed, probably by Chopin, most probably in order to correct the wrong, too lengthy performance;
  • the notation of grace notes by Chopin, not always precise; he would sometimes use them interchangeably, not being concerned about a possible difference between the performance of slashed and non-slashed grace notes (cf., e.g. the Polonaise in C Minor, Op. 26 No. 1, b. 11 and 36).

According to us, taking into account the tempo and character of the music and all the above factors, one can recommend the following rhythmic solution of this detail: .

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Notation of grace notes , Fontana's revisions

b. 5

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

b1 in A (→FC,FE→EE)

a1 in GE
..

The version of GE must be a mistake of the engraver – nothing points to any involvement of Chopin in the creation of that edition, and it is difficult to find a reason for a revision there.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

 signs in A (→FC,FE→EE)

signs in GE
..

Except for GE, in the sources the placement of the pedal asterisks was quite accurately reproduced after A – the differences do not exceed a half of a semiquaver. In turn, the pedal in b. 5 in GE encompasses the entire bar, which deviates from the notation of FC to such an extent that one can assume a mistake, e.g. printing the  from the previous bar. The mark in b. 6 was also reproduced inaccurately, moving it towards the end of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE

b. 5-21

composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

..

In b. 5 and 21 EE added a cautionary  before A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 5

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

Fingering written into FED

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

In the main text we give the fingering entered into FEJ, confirmed by a more sparing entry in FED. The addition in FES is also compliant with that fingering, although the d1-g1 notes can be performed by other fingers, e.g. 4-2. Actually, it was those digits that were initially written in FEJ in this place and changed to 2-1.

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

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ