mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

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

b. 12

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Grace note written into FEJ

No grace note in remaining sources
..

As a whole, the entry in FEJ is difficult to interpret. The part written on the stave creates a quite distinct, small, slashed f1 or g1 quaver. The context speaks strongly in favour of f1 – a repetition of a note in the form of a grace note, preceding a larger interval upwards (most often an octave), is often to be found in pieces by Chopin, cf., e.g. the Polonaise in E Major, Op. 22, b. 56, Bolero in A Minor, Op. 19, b. 160 or Scherzo in B Minor, Op. 31, b. 302. In such a context, the grace note generally facilitates the performance by enabling a change of finger, in the discussed place of the Prelude from 3 to 1 or 2. The version with the grace note can be considered an equal variant with respect to the main text.

As far as the marks added below the stave are concerned, they can be seen as, e.g. a diagonal cross (often encountered in teaching copies), a very stooped , alternatively a digit '1' (the 1st finger on the added grace note) and a slur. We consider the latter to be most likely, hence we include it in the transcription of the text of FEJ.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEJ

b. 12

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Crotchet f1 in As

Quavers g1-f1 in remaining sources 
..

As contains an earlier version, in which both parts of the Prelude were slightly more distinctly separated.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Main-line changes

b. 12

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Long accent in A

Short accent in FC (→GE), FE (→EE) & CGS
..

The accent in A has characteristic qualities of a long accent – it is quite narrow and goes beyond the next quaver. In spite of that, both FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) reproduced it as a short one. It is difficult to say for certain which accent George Sand had in mind in her copy – the mark, although longer than the accent in FE, is very similar to it.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 12

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

 in A & GE

 in FC & CGS

 in FE (→EE)
..

The  mark is written in A inaccurately – the top arm is clearly shorter than the bottom one. We assume the top one, written first, to be reliable. The starting point of the mark raises other doubts – strictly speaking, it is difficult to reconcile a long accent over c1 with a crescendo beginning from this very note. Consciously or not, that aspect was taken into account by the copyists independently – both in FC and CGS the mark begins from the next quaver. In general, that mark was reproduced strictly in accordance with the Stichvorlage only in EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 12-19

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

..

No phrase mark starts in b. 12 in As, however, a slur encompassing the triplet at the end of bar is written instead. Moreover, missing is the slur that encompasses the R.H. part in b. 13-19 in the remaining sources. See also the note on slurs in b. 18.

category imprint: Differences between sources