mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

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. 44-46

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

No slur in A, literal reading

Slur in A, contextual interpretation (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

Although these bars (as well as the subsequent ones, until b. 58) are not written out with notes in A (→FC), Chopin provided them with a R.H. phrase mark. In turn, in the L.H. part a respective phrase mark starts in A only just in b. 48, which suggests that either b. 44-47 are supposed to be devoid of a phrase mark or that they should contain the same slurring as in b. 28-31. According to us, it is the latter that is correct, which was implemented in FE (→EE).
In FC, which does not contain a L.H. phrase mark in signalized b. 44-58 at all, the text is unequivocal – the slurring from b. 28-42 should be repeated, as it was interpreted in GE.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of A

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

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