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. 17

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

Rhythm in #CFI & A (→FE→EE), & also FC (source interpretation)

Rhythm in FC (contextual interpretation→GE)
..

In FC the rhythm in the 2nd half of the bar was written down as , which is a mistake. In GE it was changed to , which is understandable if we take into account the rhythm in the remaining similar situations. However, the reviser did not respect the position of that d2 in relation to the L.H. semiquavers – it is written right above the penultimate semiquaver, which suggests that it is the semiquaver flag that is a mistake, and not the missing second dot prolonging the e2 crotchet.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 17-18

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

2 long accents in FCI

in A

No sign in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

The omission of the  hairpin both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) is probably a result of the mark overlapping with the ending of the L.H. slur – each of the arms of the hairpin looks like an attempt to prolong/finish that slur.
Two accents in FCI emphasize the importance of both d2 and the C major chord, but the sense of this transition is revealed only just when they are combined, which Chopin expressed in A by uniting them with one  mark. A comparison of those two marking methods allows us to better understand the sense of  hairpins in similar contexts (Cf. e.g. Prelude in A minor no. 2, bars 15-16). One can also see this change as an analogy to the merged slurs in b. 4-6.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 17

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

No fingering in FCI & A (→FE,FC→GE)

Fingering digit in EE
..

Nothing indicates the authenticity of the fingering in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 18-21

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

..

In FCI there is no  lowering f to f in b. 18; it is also absent in b. 19-22, in which the L.H. part is marked as a repetition of b. 18. Chopin's patent oversight is evidenced by the cautionary  before f in b. 23. This situation affects the evaluation of the notation of b. 16-17 – it is also there that we are almost certainly dealing with an oversight of naturals (in the R.H.).
See also b. 22.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals

b. 18

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

No arpeggio sign in FCI

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

FCI does not contain any of the arpeggios present in the remaining sources (cf. b. 24 and 32-33); therefore, Chopin most probably added them only just in the last stage of editing the Prelude.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes