mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 7

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

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before e on the 2nd quaver. The accidental is written in pencil also in FC; however, it is an addition of Hermann Scholtz, a later owner of the manuscript. In GE, which also includes that , one can see that it was added at the time of proofreading the print version, since there was no place for it at the stage of laying out the text. Therefore, it is an editorial revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts

b. 9

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

d in GE1

e in remaining sources
..

The GE1 version featuring the d-d1 octave on the 6th quaver is certainly mistaken, and was corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

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. 15-16

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