mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Omission of current key accidentals

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. 16-17

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

..

In FCI there are no naturals lowering f2 to f2 in these bars. It must be an inaccuracy of notation – see the comment on b. 18-22.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals

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