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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 9

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

No signs in As & CGS

  in A

  in FC

  in FE (→EE) & GE
..

The arms of the  hairpin in A are of different length; however, in this case it is almost certain that it is the top arm that has to be taken into account – an extension of the bottom arm to the left would make the dots over the L.H. minim blurry. In FC the mark is shorter, and in the editions the range of the mark was adjusted to the group of quavers, which is actually of no significance in this case.
The absence of both marks in CGS is most probably an oversight.
As has no hairpins, and the long accent in the previous bar is the only mark of this type.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in CGS

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. 16

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

No hairpins in As & EE1

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in FC (→GE) & EE2

  in FE

  in CGS
..

The range of the   hairpins in A is unclear, since the  is written at the end of the line, practically already beyond the bar line. In spite of that, diminuendo must concern also b. 16, since at the beginning of b. 17 we can already see a new sign – . This is how it was interpreted both in FC (→GE) and FE (with a slight difference in the range), and this is the interpretation we give in the main text. The absence of the marks in EE1 is most probably a mistake of the engraver, rectified in EE2 on the basis of a comparison with GE1, which is indicated by the compliance of the range of the marks. The hairpins in CGS are most probably inaccurately outlined marks of FE.

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

issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 17-18

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

No sign in As, FE (→EE1) & CGS

in A

in FC

 in GE, contextual interpretation

in EE2
..

The high position of the L.H. chords and the resulting lack of space between the staves contributed to inaccuracies and mistakes in the reproduction of the  hairpin – it was moved in FC (→GE, inaccurately) and overlooked in FE (→EE1). The mark in EE2 was added on the basis of GE1, overlooking its ending at the beginning of b. 18. In GE, there is a complete  mark at the end of the line (in b. 17), in spite of the fact that b. 18 contains its ending in the form of a new  mark – in times of Chopin, the contemporary, more accurate notation of such divided hairpins was not generally used yet. The absence of the mark in CGS is one of the arguments supporting the fact that the copy was prepared on the basis of FE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC , Hairpins denoting continuation