mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

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. 14

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

Long accent in FCI, literal reading

 in FCI (contextual interpretation) & GE2 (→GE3)

No sign in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)
..

It is unclear how to interpret the  mark in FCI. Due to the abridged notation of the L.H. part and the manner of writing semibreves more or less in the middle of the bar, it can be considered both a whole-bar  hairpin (the mark begins under the d2-b2 sixth, i.e. at the beginning of the bar, and ends close to the end of the bar) and a long accent (it has the right length and position with respect to the sixth). Actually, a similar problem can be observed already in analogous b. 5, in which, however, we consider the mark written in A as a hint on how to resolve this doubt. In the discussed bar we give both possibilities, since the absence of the mark in A does not allow us to directly support any of them; moreover, the mark in FCI is slightly shorter than the one in b. 5.
GE2 added a whole-bar  hairpin, certainly by analogy to b. 5.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Long accents , GE revisions

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