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. 5-12

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

..

As does not contain a single accidental in the R.H. part, in the entire piece (except for the final chords). In the case of the grace notes in b. 5 and 10, the missing sharps next to the grace notes seem to be obvious, although only on the assumption of a general compliance of the harmonic plan of the draft with the final version of the Prelude (accompaniment in these and adjacent bars is not even marked). In turn, the use of f1 instead of f1 in b. 8 and 11-12 unambiguously results from the written down L.H. part.

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

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