mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A 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. 13-16

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

L.H. slur in A (→FE→EE)

No slur in bars 14-16 in FC

No slur in bars 13-16 in GE
..

The missing ending of the L.H. slur in b. 14-16 in FC must be a result of distraction of the copyist, who forgot to continue the slur in a new line (he also overlooked the slur in b. 18-19; cf. also the note to b. 5-10). This mistake – not continuing the slur in a new line – was repeated in GE, in which the slur is already absent in b. 13 due to a different division of the text into great staves.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Errors of FC , Errors repeated in GE

b. 13-14

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

..

As initially featured c1 as the top note of the even quavers, just like in previous bars. Chopin then changed it to a; however, at the end of b. 14 he left c1 (it was not crossed out), which must be considered an oversight.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Accompaniment changes , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 13-18

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

dim. - - to bar 18 in A

dim. - - to bar 18 in FC

dim. - - to bar 17 in FE (→EE) & CGS

dim. - - to bar 17 in GE
..

The indication dim. - - is written in A (→FC→GE) over the top stave. As in this context it must concern the L.H. too, we place it in a standard position, i.e. between the staves. In the main text we reproduce the range of the indication after the literal interpretation of A. The further range of diminuendo in FC is an inaccuracy that occurred at the stage of reproducing A, although the notation of A does not rule out that it could have actually been Chopin's intention. In the editions the dashes marking the range of the indication end in b. 17, which is an inaccuracy resulting most probably from a different division of the text into great staves – both in the manuscripts and the editions the indication was led to the last bar of the great stave, which is b. 18 in A and FC and b. 17 in the editions.
The minor shift of the starting point of the indication in GE was an arbitrary action of the engraver.
In EE the word diminuendo was divided into syllables, which was a frequent procedure in that edition. The crossings-out visible in A show that in this case Chopin considered such a notation to be wrong for some reason.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 15

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

..

Before the first c in the main text we add a cautionary .

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 15-16

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

 in A (→FC), contextual interpretation

in FE (→EE)

Long accent in GE

in CGS
..

The interpretation of the  hairpin is problematic due to the fact – typical of Chopin – that the f1 semibreve was placed between the 3rd and 4th quavers in b. 16. Consequently, with respect to the L.H. quavers,  fills the 1st half of the bar; at the same time, however, it reaches only slightly beyond f1, if we look at the R.H. part. As the notation of A clearly indicates the R.H. as the addressee of the discussed mark, in the main text we place it between the e1 quaver and the f1 semibreve. The engraver of FE (→EE) linked the mark to the L.H. part; in addition, he arbitrarily prolonged it (perhaps confused by the contact of the bottom arm of the hairpin with the L.H. slur, which reaches the end of the bar). In turn, it is difficult to find the reason why the clear  mark was replaced by an accent in GE; however, one has to admit that the sonic result related to the latter is much more closer to the one intended by Chopin than the distorted  of FE. The version of CGS must be an inaccurately reproduced mark of FE, but the fact that it begins earlier and that it is not explicitly related to the L.H. brings it closer to the meaning intended by Chopin.

Such short  or even reversed long accents, emphasizing the second note of an ascending second, are often to be encountered in Chopin's works, e.g. in the Prelude in G No. 3 , b. 17-18 as well as in the Concerto in E Minor, Op. 11, 2nd mov., b. 29 or the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 2nd mov., b. 84 (in the last example the mark was similarly wrongly interpreted as in the Prelude).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A