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. 1-3

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

Arrangement of voices in As & A (→FC→GE)

Part arrangement in CGS

L.H. part arrangement in FE (→EE)
..

The two-part notation of the L.H. part, in which the recurring B-A-B-G motif is isolated, was already introduced in As and kept in A (→FC→GE). Unlike in As, in which all 3 bars are written like that (with the use of abbreviations), in the version prepared for print Chopin wrote only the first 2 bars like that; they must be regarded as a pattern for the next ones, already written down in a simplified manner. The adoption of that simplified notation in FE (→EE) already in b. 1-2 was almost certainly an arbitrary decision of the engraver, who, not having observed a possibility to apply the beaming used in GE and in our text (essentially tantamount to the Chopinesque notation), considered the authentic notation to be impossible to reproduce in print. The notation adopted in CGS indicates that the top voice on the bottom stave should be performed with the R.H., which is more convenient, particularly for smaller and less skillful hands. The authenticity of that notation is not confirmed; however, it seems likely – see the characterization of CGS.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: FE revisions

b. 1-23

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

..

In As, there are no slurs whatsoever. We do not mention it in further notes.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 1-22

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

..

As does not contain any performance indications – verbal indications, slurs, dynamic hairpins, pedalling marks, arpeggio marks. This is a consequence of the draft nature of this manuscript. We point out those deficiencies in subsequent notes only the first time the particular elements of notation appear.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 1

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

in A (→FE,FC→GE)

in EE
..

Nothing indicates that the change of metre introduced in EE could be authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

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

Moderato in FCI

Vivace in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

It is evident that Chopin's final decision concerning the tempo of the Prelude was Vivace. The change was almost certainly related to a distinct change of concept of the piece, which was also reflected in other performance markings, which often differ between FCI and the other sources. Moreover, the markings of FCI are more detailed in a number of places, cf., e.g. the   hairpins under the L.H. semiquavers in b. 1, dim. in b. 6, accents in b. 7 and 9.
See also the notes on the changes to the R.H. rhythm.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations