mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Main-line changes

b. 7-10

composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

Rhythm & slurs in FCI

Rhythm & slurs in A

Rhythm & slur in bar 7-8 in FC (→GE)

Rhythm & continuous slur in FE (→EE)
..

The rhythm written down in FCI in b. 7 and 9 is most probably the first version. It is evidenced by corrections stemming from that same version, visible in A in b. 9. Therefore, one can conclude that FCI contains an earlier version also in b. 8 and 10 and generally later in the Prelude (b. 16-25).
In FC (→GE) a slur is present only in b. 7-8; the missing one in b. 9-10 is an oversight of the copyist. The four-bar slur of FE (→EE) is also a mistake – the engraver could have been confused by the slur of the crossed-out L.H. part written down on the top stave in b. 8.
There is no arpeggio sign in b. 8 in EE1 – the mistake was corrected in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Main-line changes

b. 7

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

..

Chopin started crossing out and correcting the R.H. part; afterwards, he decided to rewrite the entire bar, on the staves above. The changes probably concerned two elements:

  • rhythm in the 1st half of the bar, which initially did not include a semiquaver rest – ;
  • notation of the grace notes, which were small semiquavers in the crossed-out version.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Main-line changes

b. 8

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

Dotted rhythm in GC (→GE) & EE

Even semiquavers in FE
..

The authenticity of the dotted rhythm in GC (→GE) and EE does not raise any doubts. The equal semiquavers of FE may be considered as a result of inattention of the engraver or misunderstanding of the handwritten base text, yet the version can be also a result of Chopin's correction, introduced still in the manuscript or proofreading of FE. As one of the traces of possible changes performed in print, one can consider the too long slur, adjusted to the note being closer to the bar line than the visible g semiquaver.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes , Dotted or even rhythm

b. 8

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

..

One can see a crossed-out semiquaver rest between the last two R.H. notes in A. Chopin performed the same correction in analogous b. 26, which confirms that it was only just at the stage of writing A that Chopin forwent the division of this motif into two parts. See also b. 46.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Main-line changes

b. 8-9

composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor

..

In As one can see a tie to the c1 minim in bar 8, sustaining it to the grace note in the next bar. Chopin eventually deleted it; however, it proves that he was considering this operation (not found in other pieces) – an unplayed grace note – and that it could have been used as diversification in bars 48-49 in the final version.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Main-line changes