mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 9, 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. 4

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

B in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

c in CGS
..

The version of CGS must be a mistake of the copyist. Cf. a similar mistake of the engraver of GE1 in b. 2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in CGS

b. 4

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

Slur in A (contextual interpretation→FC→GE)

No slur in FE (→EE) & CGS
..

In A this bar was written in two lines, which contributed to an ambiguous situation in the L.H. slurring – the slur written at the end of the 1st half of the bar, running from the F demisemiquaver, has no ending in the new line. In the main text we adopt a natural interpretation of that notation – cf. the short slurs in b. 2-3 – adopted in FC (→GE). In this situation, we consider the absence of the slur in FE (→EE) to be a mistake of the engraver.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 4

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

Staccato dots in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

No marks in CGS
..

The missing staccato dots in CGS are most probably an oversight of the copyist – cf. b. 1-3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in CGS

b. 5-12

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

Slur in bars 5-12 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur in bars 5-8 in FC

Slurs in bars 5-6 & 7-8 in GE

Slur in bars 10-12 in CGS
..

The slur, encompassing the entire L.H. part in these bars, was reproduced incompletely in some sources, while GE reproduced it inaccurately:

  • In FC Fontana overlooked the ending of the slur in the last line of his copy (b. 9-12). Although the slur of FC suggests a continuation at the end of b. 8, GE considered it an inaccuracy and led the slur only to B1 in that bar.
  • Moreover, in GE the issue of combining the slurs in b. 6-7 remains unclear – the slur in b. 6, at the end of the line, may suggest a continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in b. 7. We assume that they are divided slurs.
  • In CGS the first L.H. slur appears only just in b. 10-12. The beginning of that slur, suggesting a continuation from the previous bar, proves a serious inadvertence of the copyist.

A slur compliant with the notation of A is to be found in FE (→EE) only. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors of FC , Errors in CGS

b. 6-11

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

..

As was the case in the Prelude No. 8 in F Minor, Chopin assumed that the middle notes of the triplets did not require an accidental if a respective accidental had been written before a top-voice note placed an octave higher. In A (→FC→FE) and CGS there is not a single out of 8 necessary accidentals –  before c and d in b. 6, g in b. 7, c in b. 9-10, d in b. 10-11 and a  before d in b. 11. The remaining editions added the majority of accidentals; however, none of them features a fully correct text:

  • GE1 added 6 accidentals – the  before c in b. 10 and the  before d in b. 11 were overlooked;
  • GE2 added to them only a  in b. 11;
  • EE1 added 5 accidentals – the  before d in b. 6 and 10 and the  before d in b. 11 were overlooked;
  • EE2 added to them only  before d in b. 6 and 10.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE