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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 3

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

 in A (→FC,FE→EE)

in GE

in CGS
..

The moved and shorter  hairpin in GE is most probably a mistake of the engraver. There is a similar situation in CGS.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in CGS

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. 9

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

in A (→FC→GE)

in FE (→EE) & CGS
..

The difference in the length of the arms of the  hairpin in A is too insignificant to hamper the identification of their range. In spite of that, the mark in FE (→EE) was led – contrary to A – to the end of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 10

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

in A

in FC (→GE)

No sign in FE (→EE) & CGS
..

The arms of the  hairpin in A are of a different length. In the main text we interpret it on the basis of the bottom, shorter arm, while FC (→GE) took into account rather the top one. The absence of the mark in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A

b. 11

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

 in A, contextual interpretation

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

Like in the previous two bars, we assume the bottom arm of the  hairpin in A to be reliable. The mark is absent in all the remaining sources, which is almost certainly a result of oversights:

  • A few overlooked elements prove that Fontana was distracted at the time of writing the last line of FC – in addition to , it is also the L.H. slur and dashes marking the range of crescendo that are missing.
  • While working on the last line, the engraver of FE probably omitted the stage of adding dynamic markings, since the  hairpin is neither in b. 10 nor in b. 11.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in A