mUltimate Chopin

Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

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. 9

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

No ornaments in FE (→EE)

Ornaments in GE
..

The ornament-free version of FE (→EE) is probably earlier, although errors in the reading of [A1] cannot be ruled out completely (they may have resulted from e.g. corrections or deletions in the manuscript). As our main text we give the grace note with the arpeggio, on the basis of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 10-11

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

 in FE

GE

Two hairpins in EE
..

In the main text we give the   mark stretching across one and a half bars, according to GE. The version of EE, although definitely revised, can be treated as an alternative, as the notation of FE is probably inaccurate (even if it faithfully reproduces the notation of [A1]).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 12

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

..

In FE1, a  is placed before the 4th quaver, where it has no justification. That obvious error was corrected both in FE2 and in EE. GE has the correct text as well. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 13

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

No arpeggio in FE (→EE) & GE

Suggested supplement
..

We  propose that the arpeggio mark be added here, in line with the notation used in GE in the analogous bar 9. Arpeggio with the doubled lower note is very characteristic of Chopin, and he often omitted the arpeggio marks for broader chords. Therefore, it is very probable that - having marked the arpeggio upon its first appearance - Chopin considered it obvious in analogous places. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 16

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

..

In FE1 (→EE), the inner note of the chord erroneously has the value of a dotted whole note [semibreve]. This is doubtless the mistake of the engraver, who omitted the note stem (it is worth while noting that heads of minims and semibreves look the same in FE). In FE2, instead of adding the stem, the reviser removed the dot; that version, while definitely inauthentic, is nonetheless correct from the formal point of view and indistinguishable from Chopin's intended version when it is being played. In GE the note is a dotted minim, which definitely reflects the notation of both autographs. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions