mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 57-59

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

Slur to D-d in A, literal reading

Slur to bar 59 in A (contextual interpretation→FE→EE)

Slur to A-a in FC (→GE)
..

The phrase mark written in A under b. 48-58 reaches more or less the middle of the last bar (those bars are only signalized and do not contain notes). Having taken into account the contents of that bar, we get a phrase mark reaching the D-d octave. However, one can have doubts whether it was indeed Chopin's intention. It cannot be ruled out that the composer did not confront the phrase mark with the actual text of the L.H. part and simply repeated the mark from the homogeneous R.H. part. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a phrase mark reaching b. 59, which is compliant with the notation of analogous b. 41-43. When interpreted literally, the phrase mark of A may be considered a variant, whereas the even shorter phrase mark of FC (→GE) is a repetition of the erroneous, incomplete phrase mark of those sources in analogous b. 41-43.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , FE revisions

b. 58-59

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

Slur to end of bar 58 in FE

Slur to bar 59 in FC (possible interpretation→GE)

Slur to end of bar in EE
..

The phrase mark in A ends in b. 58, near the beginning of the bar – it is difficult to determine, since it is one of the bars written down in an abridged manner, without notes. We assume that it reaches the 1st chord in that bar. However, both FC and FE interpreted the ending of that phrase mark differently – in FE it was led to the end of the bar, whereas in FC even further (in FC the bar ends a line while the phrase mark goes beyond the stave), which in GE was reproduced as a phrase mark running to the 1st chord in b. 59. Taking into account the fact that the ending of that phrase mark is most probably inaccurate in A – see below, the note on the L.H. phrase mark – both versions can be considered possible interpretations of the notation of A. In the main text we suggest yet another solution, based on the following, additional assumptions:

  • in analogous b. 42-43 the phrase mark ending on the last chord of the phrase (at the beginning of b. 43, which corresponds to b. 59) was prolonged by Chopin to the end of the bar and beyond;
  • a new phrase mark starts clearly in b. 60, which limits the range of the preceding phrase mark.

That version was also introduced by EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 81

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

Slur from 3rd quaver in A (literal reading→FE→EE)

Slur from 2nd quaver in A, possible interpretation

No slur in FC (→GE)
..

The slur of A was written carelessly – its right-hand end reaches over the rest, while the curvature is barely noticeable. Therefore, one can ponder whether its starting point, falling on the 3rd quaver in the bar, corresponds to Chopin's intention, particularly since in a similar context, in b. 27, the slur of A starts clearly on the 2nd quaver. Taking into account the above, we suggest a slur running from the 2nd quaver as an acceptable variant.
The missing slur in FC (→GE) is one of quite numerous oversights of the copyist.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC

b. 82-83

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

Slur in A (literal reading→FE→EE)

Slur in A, contextual interpretation

2 slurs in FC (→GE)
..

The beginning of the slur in A falls slightly before the 2nd crotchet in b. 82, which explains the choice of FE (→EE), in which the slur runs from that crotchet. According to us, starting the slur at the pitch of the previous tie to b2 indicates that the motif beginning with that syncopation should be continued, which seems more natural, after all.
The division of the slur in FC (→GE) resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the slur of A, which, due to the fact that it is between the lines, was written in two parts.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC