mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 11-12

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

in A

in FC & EE

No sign in FE1

in FE2

in GE

in CGS
..

The corrections and crossings-out visible in A reveal the changes performed both to the range and the position of the  hairpin in this place (As does not contain any dynamic markings). The initial mark, written between the staves, started between the 6th and 7th quavers in b. 10, which was changed by Chopin – he moved the beginning under the last quaver in that bar. Eventually, both versions were crossed out, and a new hairpin was written over the R.H. part, which we give in the main text. Although the new mark begins at the end of b. 10, both FC (→GE) and FE2 (→EE) placed its starting point only in b. 11 – these changes cannot come from Chopin, since he did not directly participate in the publication of the Preludes after having finished A. The longest mark of CGS is most probably an arbitrary interpretation of the hairpin of FE2 by the copyist. 

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

issues: Errors in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Corrections in A , Deletions in A , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

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