mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Fontana's revisions

b. 1-8

composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor

..

In A (→FC) these bars are numbered from 1 to 8. Those digits were then used to mark b. 41-48 in an abridged manner. Fontana used the first two digits to mark in such a way b. 9-10 too, which resulted in GE omitting the accents and moving the cresc. from b. 10 to b. 11.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Abbreviated notation of A , Fontana's revisions

b. 2-15

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

..

Conventional abbreviations were used in all manuscripts to write down the repeating figurations, mainly in the L.H. part. FCI features as many as 13 bars (b. 2-6, 14-16, 19-22 and 29) written down in such a way, which constitutes the largest share. It is very likely that it corresponds to the notation of the autograph of a previous version, which Fontana copied, since Chopin was very keen on using such abbreviations, particularly in unofficial manuscripts. This opinion is not challenged by the fact that Fontana used numerous abbreviations in FC (b. 11, 14-16, 19-21, 27 and 29) contrary to the notation of A (abbreviation only in b. 11): he could venture to do that having in mind the text and notation of the earlier autograph.
See also b. 16-29.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Abbreviated notation of A , Fontana's revisions

b. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

..

In A (→FE) there is no  raising f1 to f1. The manifest inadvertence was rectified in FC (→GE) and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors of A , Fontana's revisions , Errors repeated in FE

b. 4

composition: Op. 28 No. 13, Prelude in F♯ major

Semibreve c1 in A (→FE→EE1)

Dotted minim in FC (→GE) & EE2
..

A comparison with similar b. 2, 10 and 12 proves that Chopin wanted the c1 note to be heard in the 2nd half of the bar too. Therefore, it was certainly wrong of Fontana to shorten its value. It would be more justified to extend the length of the note with a dot, as was performed in the aforementioned bars; however, it is not necessary due to pedal. The change in EE2 was most probably introduced under the influence of GE1 (other examples of wrong versions of GE1 having been introduced into EE2 – see, e.g. the Prelude No. 5 in D Major, b. 16, No. 21 in B Major, b. 4 or No. 24 in D Minor, b. 47-49).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Fontana's revisions

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