mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of FC

b. 65-66

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

2 long accents in A

Long accent in FC (→GE)

2 short accents in FE

2 vertical accents in EE
..

The two long accents we give in the main text come from A. The copyist overlooked the second one in FC (→GE), and short accents in FE result from inaccurate recreation of A. The vertical accents in EE are an arbitrary revision characteristic of this edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of FC

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

b. 83

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

in A (→FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

No sign in FC (→GE1)
..

The missing  hairpin in FC (→GE1) must be a mistake of Fontana, who overlooked a few dynamic markings further on – in b. 84, the  hairpin in b. 85 and the accents in b. 86 and 87. The addition of that mark in GE2 indicates that the text of FE was used at random at the time of revision. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 84

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

 from 2nd quaver in A (literal reading) & FE2

 from beginning of bar in A (contextual interpretation) & EE

No marking in FC (→GE) & FE1
..

The placement of the  indication is ambiguous in A – the mark is written close to the L.H. part (partially on the bottom stave), after the quaver rest at the beginning of the bar, hence it seems that it concerns the repeated a quavers. However, a more thorough analysis of the notation of A opens an alternative interpretive possibility – in relation to the R.H. part  is written before the first chord, i.e. at the beginning of the bar. Moreover, the indication is preceded by a quite significant crossing-out (probably ), which makes it impossible to write  more to the left. Taking into account the above, in the main text we put  at the beginning of the bar as a general indication, concerning all voices.
The missing indication in FC (→GE) must be an oversight of Fontana, who also overlooked a few dynamic markings in b. 83-87 (see the note in the previous bar). The indication was also overlooked in FE1, yet added in FE2, next to the 2nd quaver in the bar, most probably as a literal interpretation of A. Chopin did not question that version in any of the teaching copies, hence it can be considered an equal variant. Our solution was already introduced in EE, which seems to be a coincidence, since that edition most probably did not have access to A.

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

issues: EE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in A