mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in teaching copies

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. 12

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

No markings in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE) & ACh

 in AB & CGS

in FED

() – our variant suggestion
..

In the version prepared for print, as well as in ACh, Chopin did not mark the scale of the final crescendo. However, such markings are present in AB and CGS and in FED. In the main text we suggest (in a variant form – in brackets) the  written by Chopin in FED, since it is the only addition to the text of A (→FE) coming directly from the composer. According to us, the authenticity of the  indication of CGS also seems to be highly likely, which is a consequence of a long, close acquaintance between the copyist and Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED