mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

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. 28-32

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

Short slurs in both hands in FCI

Long R.H. slur in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

A detailed (separate for each hand) and short-breath (one bar each) slurring of FCI was replaced by Chopin with one slur, encompassing the entire final fragment of the figuration of both hands. Cf. b. 4-14.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 30

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

Fingering written into FED

Possible fingering in FES

No fingering in FCI & A (→FE,FC→GE)

L.H. fingering in EE
..

In the main text we take into account the fingering entered – most probably by Chopin – into FED. In this place it is of a reminding nature – the scheme with thumb on d1 was already indicated in b. 28 – and would be more justified a half of a bar earlier or later. However, it does not have to mean that the composer committed a mistake – similar situations, when the fingering was not written for the first time, but only just in one of the repetitions of a given figure, can often be found in the Chopinesque teaching entries, e.g. in the Impromptu in A Major, Op. 29, b. 12 or in the Etude in F Minor, Op. 25 No. 2, b. 3-4. In turn, we do not include the entry in FES, since its interpretation as a fingering digit is uncertain. The inauthentic, although most probably compliant with the Chopinesque idea, L.H. fingering given in EE would be – like the entry in FED – more justified in the 1st half of the bar.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES

b. 31

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

cresc. in FCI

dim. - - in A (→FE→EE)

cresc. in FC (→GE)
..

It remains unclear how the copyist could have distorted the dynamic indication – after all, the indication in A is absolutely legible. Perhaps Fontana, who copied an earlier version of the Prelude, featuring cresc. in this place, remembered that indication and entered it into FC, not having noticed that Chopin changed the dynamic concept of the ending in the meantime. Anyway, nothing indicates that Chopin would have liked to return to the initial dynamic version.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors of FC

b. 31-32

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

Fingering written into FED

Fingering written into FES

Fingering suggested by the editors

No teaching fingering in FCI & A (→FE,FC→GE)

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text we give the complementary entries of FED and FES concerning the R.H. The fingering of both hands provided in EE, different from the Chopinesque one in the R.H. part, cannot be authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES

b. 32-33

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

No arpeggio signs in FCI

Arpeggio signs in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

The missing arpeggios in FCI could be explained by inaccuracy, caused by, e.g. lack of space in FCI or in the lost autograph on which it was based. However, taking into account the fact that FCI does not contain any of the arpeggios present in the final version (cf. b. 18 and 24), it is most probably an earlier version.

category imprint: Differences between sources