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. 4-14

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

2 slurs in FCI

1 slur in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

In FCI the slurring of the motif in b. 4-6 and 13-15 shows its microstructure as a combination of two motifs of ornamental origin:

  • the nature of the first one, which is an echo of the one heard a bar before, is of a note preceded by a short grace note,
  • the second one is a note preceded by a long grace note, appoggiatura.

In essence, the entire phrase could be written down as follows (the rhythmic values are halved): .
In the final version, Chopin simplified the slurring in accordance with the natural course of music.
See also b. 28-32. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 6-15

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

dim. & poco cresc. in FCI

No indications in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

In FCI the identical places in terms of pitch and rhythm were marked differently, which is noteworthy – dim. in b. 6, yet poco cresc. in b. 15, i.e. in an analogous place. The fact that those indications were abandoned in the final version could have been related to the calmer tempo of the Prelude. See also b. 11, 27-30 and 32.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 7-10

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

Rhythm & slurs in FCI

Rhythm & slurs in A

Rhythm & slur in bar 7-8 in FC (→GE)

Rhythm & continuous slur in FE (→EE)
..

The rhythm written down in FCI in b. 7 and 9 is most probably the first version. It is evidenced by corrections stemming from that same version, visible in A in b. 9. Therefore, one can conclude that FCI contains an earlier version also in b. 8 and 10 and generally later in the Prelude (b. 16-25).
In FC (→GE) a slur is present only in b. 7-8; the missing one in b. 9-10 is an oversight of the copyist. The four-bar slur of FE (→EE) is also a mistake – the engraver could have been confused by the slur of the crossed-out L.H. part written down on the top stave in b. 8.
There is no arpeggio sign in b. 8 in EE1 – the mistake was corrected in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Main-line changes

b. 7-10

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

..

FCI does not contain any accidentals in the R.H. part in these bars. The missing sharps in b. 7 and 9 are a patent inaccuracy (formally speaking, a cautionary  in b. 10 is not indispensable due to the presence of corresponding sharps in the L.H., i.e. raising c1 to c1). Such an incomplete notation was probably present already in the lost autograph that served as the basis for this copy, since it seems unlikely that the copyist would selectively omit marks on the top stave (see also b. 16-17).
There is no  in bar 7 in FC, too – the visible accidental was pencilled in by H. Scholtz, the later owner of FC. The obvious oversight was corrected in GE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of FC

b. 7-9

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

Long accents in FCI

No marks in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

FCI contains much more accents – in bars 7 and 9, as well as 12, 16-18, 20 and 22.

category imprint: Differences between sources