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
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

b. 1-4

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

Slurs in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

No slurs in CGS
..

In CGS there are no L.H. slurs in these bars (nor in the next ones, until b. 9). See b. 5-12.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in CGS

b. 2

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

2 slurs in A (→FE→EE) & CGS

Continuous slur in FC (→GE)
..

Fontana's mistake in the interpretation of the slurs of A could have been caused by a slur from the next page of A clearly showing through the paper – a fragment of a slur of the Prelude in C Minor seems to combine the two slurs of A in this place.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 3-4

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

Slur in A

No slur in FC (→GE), FE (→EE) & CGS
..

The inconspicuous little slur of A was overlooked both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE). The absence in CGS – see b. 1-9.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 4-5

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

Separate slurs in A

Equivocal slurs in FC, literal reading

Continuous slur in FE (→EE), GE & CGS
..

The slurs in A are clearly divided, hence it is unclear what confused the engraver of FE (→EE) and made him not take into consideration that division. The slurring of FC is obscure – the slur in b. 4, at the end of the line, does not suggest a continuation, yet the slur at the beginning of b. 5 clearly does. Consequently, it is also GE that feature a continuous slur here.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

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