mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C 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. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

e1 in A (literal reading→FE,FC→GE), AB & EE2

e1 in ACh, CGS, EE1 & FES
..

According to us, it is much more likely that the missing  restoring e1, which would result in e1 at the end of the bar, is one of numerous such oversights of Chopin – see, e.g. the note to b. 8 and 12 as well as to the Prelude No. 7 in A Major, b. 13 or No. 18 in F Minor, b. 8. Therefore, we assume that the flats entered or added in ACh, CGS and FES define or restore the only correct text, which we adopt as the main one. However, the version with e1 has a consistent place in the history of music, e.g. as the theme of variations of Feruccio Busoni (BV 213a) and of Sergei Rachmaninoff (Op. 22).
The double revision in EE is noteworthy – first a  was added in EE1 and then it was removed in EE2.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Annotations in FES

b. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

..

There is no  restoring b in the 2nd chord in AB, which is a patent oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration

b. 4-5

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

Continuous slur in A (literal reading→FE→EE) & CGS

Separate slurs in A (contextual interpretation→FC→GE), AB & ACh
..

The slurs of A between b. 4 and 5 are ambiguous – the slur in b. 4, which ends the line, clearly suggests continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in b. 5. The four-bar structure of the Prelude, emphasized by the change of register and dynamics, makes us consider the ending of the slur in b. 4 to be inaccurate, which is confirmed by the notation of both later album autographs.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 5-13

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

Slurs to C1-C in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

Slurs from 1st beat to C1-C & final chord (after AB)

Slurs from 2nd beat to C1-C & final chord in ACh, literal reading

Slurs from 2nd beat to C1-C in ACh, contextual interpretation

No slurs in CGS
..

In the main text we give the unequivocal phrase marks of A and the remaining sources stemming from it. The later autographs – AB and ACh – convey variants that do not seem to be simply inaccuracies of notation. As regards the longer phrase mark of AB – placed in the original in bars 5-9 of the 9-bar version of the Prelude – we admit it to the basic, 13-bar version as a variant of the slur in bars 9-13.
The phrase marks of ACh underline the beginning of the bass passus duriusculus; they also constitute the latest authentic variant concerning phrase marks in these bars. The ending of the phrase mark in b. 9-12 reaches b. 13, which, according to us, is an inaccuracy; however, when interpreted literally, it results in a variant combining both authentic versions of phrase marks.
The missing phrase marks in CGS must be one of numerous defects of that copy.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in CGS

b. 5

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

 in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE), AB & ACh

No marking in CGS
..

As was the case with b. 1, the missing  in CGS is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in CGS