mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

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. 22

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

..

In the manuscripts, the 2nd and 4th beats of the bar are written in an abridged manner as repetitions of the 1st and 3rd ones. The editions did not use abbreviations, which resulted in certain misunderstandings or awkward situations in the notation of accidentals – see the next note.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Abbreviated notation of A

b. 22

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

..

FE and GE did not use the abridged notation of the 2nd and 4th beats of the bar applied in A (→FC); however, none of the accidentals was repeated on those beats in FE1, which resulted in a mistake in the 4th R.H. group – first, c3 was not raised to c3, and then c3 was not restored. It was corrected in FE2 (→EE) by adding respective accidentals (the traces in some copies might be regarded as indicating that initially a  was also added before e3). In turn, GE repeated all accidentals in both hands, which is not a mistake, but it unnecessarily makes the notation denser. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 22

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

2 slurs in A

4 slurs in FC

Continuous slur in FE (→EE) & GE
..

In A each of the two R.H. slurs encompasses – unlike in the L.H. – the repeat sign, marking the 2nd and 4th beats of the bar, respectively. Therefore, they are two half-bar slurs, which we give in the main text. In FC the slurs are clearly shorter, hence they are to be interpreted as encompassing only one group of demisemiquavers, which, after taking into account the repeat signs, results in 4 slurs in this bar. Both FE (→EE) and GE misinterpreted the slurs of the manuscripts as one slur over an entire bar.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 23

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

d3 in A (→FC→GE1), literal reading

d3 in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

Our variant suggestion
..

In A (→FC→GE1) there is no accidental before the 4th demisemiquaver in the 3rd group, as a result of which it is to be interpreted as a d3. In FE (→EE), as well as in GE2 (→GE3), a  was added, thus lowering it to d3. In this case, Fontana's addition seems arguable, since there is a number of source and music arguments for d3: 

  • the crossings-out and corrections visible in the adjacent bars prove that Chopin controlled the accidentals in A, cf. b. 22 and 24;
  • the use of d1 and d2 after the C minor chord in b. 24 was marked by Chopin with naturals both in the R.H., where this accidental is necessary, and in the L.H., where it is only of a cautionary nature;
  • Chopin used a similar combination of notes enclosing a major chord in b. 24 (a1 and c2 next to the G major chord).

However, since we cannot rule out an accidental oversight of a natural by Chopin in the discussed place (and hence the accuracy of Fontana's revision in FE), in the main text we include both possibilities in a variant form, giving preference to the literally interpreted version of A featuring a d3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 23-24

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

Continuous slur in A, probable interpretation

2 slurs in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

In A the slur over b. 23, which ends the line, was extended and reaches clearly beyond the stave, which, in turn, suggests a continuation. However, the slur in b. 24 rather does not confirm that, hence the slurs in FC (→GE) are divided. The slurs in FE reproduce the ambiguous notation of A – the slur in b. 23 suggests a continuation, yet in b. 24 a new slur begins. It is also that inaccuracy that was interpreted as separate slurs, which we see in EE. In the main text we suggest a continuous slur, considering the Chopinesque correction of the slur at the end of b. 23 to be decisive.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Corrections in A , Uncertain slur continuation