mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

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. 13-15

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

No slur in As & #KGS

Slur in A (→FE→EE)

Slur to end of bar 15 in FC
..

In b. 15, at the end of the line, Fontana ambiguously ended the slur in FC – the slur goes quite far beyond the last written-down chord, which could suggest a continuation, yet it does not even reach the end of the line, which suggests that the slur should end. As the ending of the slur was overlooked on a new line, in GE the slur was led only to the last written-down chord – the minim (with a quaver tremolo marking) at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar.

The missing slur in CGS is an oversight of the copyist, who overlooked the majority of the L.H. slurs in the second half of the Prelude. The fact that she wrote the final fragment of that slur, encompassing b. 16, is an unquestionable evidence of distraction. See also b. 17-23. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FC , Errors in CGS

b. 16-19

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

stretto - - - in A

stretto - - - in FC

stretto - - - in GE

stretto - - - in FE

stretto - - - in CGS
..

In the notation of A it is not entirely clear where Chopin wanted to begin stretto or how far the dashes marking its range are supposed to reach. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the remaining sources reproduce those details differently, which we consider inaccuracies, with the exception of the version of GE, in which the dashes are led as far as to the beginning of b. 19, which is clearly contrary to the notation of FC. In the main text we assume that stretto is to be combined rather with g2 than a1 and that the dashes reach f1 in b. 18. The major divergence from the Chopinesque notation is to be seen in CGS, in which stretto is written in the middle of the 1st half of b. 16 and the dashes only just in the 2nd half of b. 17, as a result of which it is actually unclear how they are to be considered jointly (in that copy, just like in FE, the entire indication is placed between the staves). It was probably caused by lack of space between the staves.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A , Errors in CGS

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

b. 17

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

No slur in As & CGS

Slur from 2nd quaver in A (→FC,FE→EE)

Slur from 1st quaver in GE
..

The slur in A, written still before the topmost notes of the chords on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quavers had been added, clearly starts from the 2nd quaver. In FC, although the copyist almost certainly wanted to accurately reproduce the notation of A, the beginning of the slur falls almost over the 1st quaver, which confused the engraver of GE. The missing slur in CGS is an oversight of the copyist, as was the case with the previous slur in b. 13-16.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC , Errors in CGS