mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 19, Prelude in E♭ major

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. 5

composition: Op. 28 No. 19, Prelude in E♭ major

..

The 3rd quaver in GE1 is a c2 (with a ). At this pitch, a natural does not cancel anything; in turn, it deprives the 6th and 9th semiquavers of necessary alterations, which points to a Terzverschreibung mistake, irrespective of the compliant version of the remaining sources. The error was corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions

b. 7

composition: Op. 28 No. 19, Prelude in E♭ major

on 6th quaver in A, probable reading

on 5th quaver in A (another reading→FC)

on 3. beat in A (possible reading→FE→EE)

on 2nd beat in GE

[ ] suggested by the editors

 on 3rd beat, our alternative suggestion
..

The position of the second  marking in this bar in A (→FC) is questionable. It is placed under the 2nd and 3rd quavers of the middle triplet (due to the correction of the 2nd quaver, they are very close to each other); it can also be assigned to the 1st note of the 3rd triplet (the version of GE is almost certainly contrary to the idea of Chopin). According to us, in A it seems that the mark should be associated with f on the 6th quaver of the bar, whereas in FC with b on the 5th one. Along with the version of FE, it exhausts the possibilities of a direct interpretation of this notation.
We suggest two more solutions drawn from the unequivocal, authentic pedalling of similar phrases in b. 5 and 17.
A similar situation can be found in b. 39. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 8

composition: Op. 28 No. 19, Prelude in E♭ major

..

In the main text we add cautionary flats before the 3rd L.H. quaver (a) and the 6th R.H. quaver (a1).

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 9-12

composition: Op. 28 No. 19, Prelude in E♭ major

No pedalling in A (→FE1,FC→GE)

    in FE2 (→EE)
..

The four-bar pedal added in FE2 (→EE) must be erroneous – cf. the authentic pedalling of b. 1-4. The intention could have been to generally indicate con pedale, which Chopin would probably sometimes use in the form of a single  marking (cf., e.g. the Etude in E Major, Op. 10 No. 11, b. 3-4). As Chopin's participation in the proofreading of FE2 remains unconfirmed, we keep the notation of A in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions

b. 12

composition: Op. 28 No. 19, Prelude in E♭ major

c in sources

e, our alternative suggestion
..

There are indications that the c note, present in all sources, could have been erroneously inserted instead of e:

  • in combination with the next bar, parallel fifths in the outer voices occur: c-g2 and c-g2,
  • no pedalling in b. 9-12 suggests that Chopin expected here the same harmonic course as in b. 1-4,
  • another possibility is a lapsus calami of Chopin consisting in the anticipation of the 1st note of the next bar (cf. the commentary on the Prelude in F Major, Op. 28 No. 13, b. 32).

The above statements, however, do not tip the balance in favour of the composer's mistake:

  • parallel fifths in outer voices, unquestionable in terms of sources, can be found in Chopin's oeuvre, especially when the chords share a common note and when at least one is dissonant, e.g. in the Prelude No. 4 in E Minor, b. 3-4 or in the Scherzo in E Major, Op. 54, b. 55-56,
  • Chopin committed a few inaccuracies in the pedalling markings in this Prelude in A, even a few evident mistakes, which could mean that it was written down hastily; therefore, it undermines the arguments based on it.

Therefore, in the main text we keep c, which is present in the sources; we suggest the version with e, assuming Chopin's mistake, as an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Terzverschreibung error