mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

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

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