mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of FC

0
b. 34-37

composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Slur in FC (→GE)
..

In FC b. 35 opens a new line, in which the copyist overlooked the phrase marks under the L.H. part. It resulted in the phrase mark from the previous bars having been shortened and in a gap in the slurring of FC (→GE) encompassing b. 35-39.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 38-39

composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Slur to bar 39 in A, contextual interpretation

Slur to end of bar 38 in A (possible interpretation→FE→EE)

No slur in FC (→GE)
..

In A the ending of the phrase mark in b. 38, which closes the line, clearly indicates that it should be continued, which is not confirmed by b. 39, which is devoid of a phrase mark. We solve this slurring inconsistency (frequent in Chopin's works) in favour of the notation in b. 38 – we lead the phrase mark to the semibreve in b. 39, taking into account the four-bar structure of phrases. FE (→EE) adopted a different interpretation, perhaps easier to draw.
The missing phrase mark in FC (→GE) resulted from Fontana's oversight – see b. 34-37.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 41-43

composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Slur to bar 43 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur in bars 40-41 in FC (→GE)
..

The copyist did not finish the phrase mark in b. 42-43, which open a new line.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 47-48

composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Slur from bar 48 in A, literal reading

Slur continued from bars 44-46 in A, contextual interpretation (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

The discussed bars are a repetition of b. 31-32, not written out in the manuscripts, marked in an abridged manner. Therefore, we encounter here similar problems concerning the interpretation of the ambiguous L.H. slurring of A – see the note on those bars. The phrase mark written in A under signalized b. 48-58 is a new element; it suggests that their slurring should be different than the first time and that b. 47 is either to be devoid of a phrase mark or provided with the same one as in b. 31. According to us, as was the case with b. 44-46, it is the latter that is correct.
FC does not contain the phrase mark that begins in A in b. 48. Since the entire section written down in an abridged manner is devoid of L.H. phrase marks in this copy, it is the ones present in FC (→GE) for the first time that are valid. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC

b. 50-56

composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Continuous slur in A

2 slurs, incl. to end of bar 50 in FC (→GE)

3 slurs incl. to bar 51 & to end of bar 54 in FE (→EE)

2 slurs incl. to bar 55, our alternative suggestion

3 slurs incl. to bar 51 & 55, our another suggestion
..

These bars, although not written out in the manuscripts, are provided in A with a phrase mark encompassing b. 48-58. Therefore, we should assume that the phrase mark is supposed to replace the slurring featured in the respective bars the first time (b. 34-40). In turn, the omission of that phrase mark in FC indicates that it should be the slurring of b. 34-40 that should be repeated, which was implemented in GE (in this version the phrase marks in b. 35-39 = 51-55 were overlooked by the copyist by mistake). A solution consisting in repeating the slurring featured the first time was also adopted by FE (→EE). That version, based on the slurring of A referring to the actually written down text of b. 34-40, and not empty bars, can be considered an equivalent variant. Our two alternative suggestions are of a similar nature – the first is based on the version of FE, yet it takes into account a more likely interpretation of the phrase marks of A in b. 34-35 = 50-51, whereas the second is a compromise between the version with three phrase marks and the version of A with a continuous phrase mark. The above suggestions are based on the questionable range of the phrase mark of A in the discussed bars, which questions the credibility of its literal interpretation – see the note on b. 57-59.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC