mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Corrections in A

b. 8

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

..

In A before the 2nd demisemiquaver in the 3rd group, one can see a crossing-out, most probably of a  lowering it to c3. It would confirm that Chopin was convinced that accidentals before the 2nd and 8th demisemiquavers in each group are not necessary, since their pitch is determined by the preceding note, placed an octave lower. Similarly in the Prelude in E no. 19, bar 13 and 39.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A

b. 9

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

g in sources, literal reading

g, our alternative suggestion
..

The main text is the version of the sources (interpreted literally). However, the crossings-out and corrections in this figure, visible in A, allow us to assume that Chopin forgot to insert a  lowering g to g, especially if he introduced the changes already after having written the next figure, which undoubtedly features a g (with a ). We include this possibility, resulting in a version analogous to b. 10, as a variant.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Errors of A , Deletions in A , Accompaniment changes

b. 10

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

..

In A one can see corrections on the 2nd beat of the bar – the R.H. figure was crossed out and rewritten on the stave above. Chopin wanted to change the enharmonic notation of the 5th and 6th demisemiquavers from f2-d2 to e2-c2; eventually, however, when writing the 6th demisemiquaver as c2, he again changed his mind and returned to d2 (he introduced the change of f1 to e1 also in the L.H.).

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Chopin's hesitations , Deletions in A , Enharmonic corrections

b. 22

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

..

The  (cautionary?) present in all sources before d1 in the 3rd L.H. figure is almost certainly a remaining part of the initial notation of the quavers in the 1st half of the bar, which were written down as d1. After the notation had been changed, the  was no more necessary, hence we omit it in the main text. In the same 3rd L.H. figure, one can see in A a crossed-out  before c2. The accidental is not necessary, yet, due to c3 in the R.H., we give it in the main text. It was most probably for the same reason that it was also added in FE2 (→EE), also in the 4th figure. EE repeated in the 4th figure also the  before d1.

category imprint: Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Corrections in A , Cautionary accidentals , Deletions in A , Enharmonic corrections , 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