mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in CGS

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. 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

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