mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of FC

b. 4-7

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

  &  in A (→FE→EE)

No signs in FC (→GE)
..

As was the case with b. 3, the missing dynamic hairpin in FC (→GE) resulted from the inadvertence of the copyist, who overlooked the marks from the entire first line of A (b. 1-6) and b. 7 (in the case of b. 7, deciphering the mark in A is actually hampered by the crossings-out, clearly visible from the other side of the page).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 4-5

composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major

Separate slurs in A (→FE→EE)

Continuous slur in FC (→GE)
..

In FC the line ends in b. 4, and the slurs, both at the end of b. 4 and at the beginning of b. 5, indicate that the slur should be continued. In A the slurs between the lines also suggest a continuous slur; however, in the case of A the line ends earlier, already in the middle of b. 4. This was most probably the reason for the copyist's confusion: he did not pay attention to the difference in the layout while writing the slurs.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 4

composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major

e1 on 6th quaver in A (→FE)

e1 on 6th quaver, L.H. finger 1 in EE1

e1 on 6th quaver, R.H. finger 2 in FES

e1 on 3rd beat, under slur in FC (→GE)

e1 on 3rd beat, no slur in EE2
..

Interpreting the top note of the 6th L.H. quaver, e1, as a R.H. crotchet on the 3rd beat of the bar is almost certainly Fontana's mistake. The copyist was most probably misled by the note having been written on the top stave, the poorly visible top fragment of the stem combining that note with c and the dot extending the g1 minim at the beginning of the bar having been crossed out in A (the crossing-out most probably provided for the discussed e1 to be performed with the right hand; in addition, it was probably to be completed by a crotchet rest, which Chopin, however, did not do). Having completed the rhythm of the R.H. melody with that note, Fontana also led to it the phrase mark encompassing the first phrase. The change in EE2 must have been introduced under the influence of GE1. In the main text we give the notation of A (→FE→EE1), supplemented by a crotchet rest.

To eliminate the possibility of creating incoherent combinations of variants from different notes, we include the fingering of EE and FES, which applies to the e1 quaver, here, in the variants including that quaver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Deletions in A , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 4

composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major

..

In FC (→GE) the slur reaches e1, which is a crotchet on the 3rd beat of the bar in these sources (filling the bar after the g1 minim), and not the top note of the last L.H. quaver.
See the next note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 4-5

composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Separate slurs in A (→FE)

Continuous slur in FC (→GE) & EE
..

The continuous phrase mark of FC (→GE) is a mistake of the copyist – the phrase marks in A are clearly separated, and their shape does not indicate that they should be combined. In FE b. 4 ends a line, while the phrase mark in b. 4 suggests that it should be continued, which, generally, is not confirmed by the phrase mark in b. 5 (cf. the beginning of the next line in FE). Considered as a whole, however, the notation of FE may be misleading, which explains the presence of a continuous phrase mark in EE.  

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of FC