mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

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

Pedalling

b. 18-20

composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

Pedalling in A

Pedalling in FC

Pedalling in FE (→EE)

Pedalling in GE
..

In A the pedalling of these bars, seemingly inconsistent and differing from analog. b. 2-4, could be considered inaccurate, e.g. due to having been written in haste. However, it turns out that if we take into account the R.H. part, the pedalling markings fall almost exactly in the same place as the first time. It seems highly unlikely that it could have been an accident; therefore, Chopin apparently marked pedal changes in this vibrating dominant ninth chord to separate the sections with minor ninth (b1) from the sections with major ninth (b1). This is how we interpret it in the main text. In the remaining sources, the  marks were rather adjusted to the L.H. notes; moreover, GE arbitrarily moved the last change of pedal to the beginning of b. 20.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 29-32

composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

Pedalling in A

Pedalling in FC

Pedalling in FE

Pedalling in GE

Pedalling in EE
..

In these bars, in spite of the strict analogy to b. 13-16 (except for the first two and the last semiquavers), Chopin wrote a different pedalling. Due to a dense notation and the use of an abbreviation in b. 32, it posed, however, similar challenges in its interpretation. The copyist considered – and rightly so – that leaving the last  mark written by Chopin (in b. 31) without a  mark is an inaccuracy, which he tried to fix by adding a  at the end of b. 31. However, that does not remove the inaccuracy if the markings in b. 32 are to be repeated – if such was the case, a  mark would be missing at the beginning of b. 32. The above is probably the reason why the pedalling in b. 32 was completely omitted in GE. According to us, Chopin's intention was interpreted correctly in FE, which repeated the markings from b. 31 in b. 32 and added a  mark at the end of it. Moreover, in FC (→GE) the  mark at the end of b. 29 was placed – contrary to A – under the last semiquaver. In FE it is also the marks at the end of b. 30 and 31 that were reproduced like that. EE stand out due to an erroneous omission of pedalling starting from the 3rd beat of b. 30.

See also b. 1-4. 

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Fontana's revisions

b. 30

composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

  on 3rd beat in A (→FC→GE)

   in FE

  on 2nd beat in EE

( )  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest taking into account the pedalling on the 2nd beat of the bar, added in FE (→EE) and generally compliant with the markings in the next, analogous bars (the issue concerning the placement of the last pedal change in this and adjacent bars is discussed in the previous note). As FE1 was corrected by Fontana, and it seems highly unlikely that he would have consulted that addition with Chopin, we put the marks in brackets.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE

b. 33-34

composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

Pedalling in A (→FE→EE)

Pedalling in FC

Pedalling in GE
..

The pedal change between b. 33 and 34 is written in FC inaccurately – one can get the impression that the pedal is to be pressed already on the last semiquaver in b. 33. It caused a minor inaccuracy in GE too, in which the  mark was placed clearly before that note.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC