mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

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. 1-14

composition: Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

Long accents in A, contextual interpretation

& accents in FC (→GE)

 in FE (→EE)
..

The  marks in b. 1-2 and analog. are of different length in A; however, the differences are clearly of an accidental nature, hence we unify them in the main text. At the same time, we give them the form of long accents, taking into account, above all, the graphical factor – it is shorter marks that definitely prevail, which can be considered long accents – and the practical factor – in the Allegro molto tempo, each such a fast succession of short diminuendoes, unless we combine them in one, two-bar long (which would have been certainly written differently), comes down to accents.

The markings in the remaining sources also indicate that attempts were made to unify them, although in the case of FC (→GE), the first two passages are provided with clearly longer marks than the subsequent ones. Those versions can be considered an acceptable interpretation of the notation of A.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

 in A (literal reading→FE→EE)

Long accent in A, contextual interpretation

in FC (→GE)
..

Actually, the  mark written in A encompasses the entire opening sextuplet. However, some of the subsequent marks, which, according to us, are to be interpreted as long accents regardless of their factual length, are of a similar length, which makes us consider this mark to be a long accent too. Naturally, the literal interpretation may be regarded as an equal variant. The mark in FC (→GE), quite significantly shortened, could have resulted from the copyist's conviction about the need to unify this and the subsequent marks.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 1-14

composition: Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

Arpeggio signs in A (→FE→EE)

No signs in FC (→GE)
..

The omission of 9 out of 20 arpeggios in b. 1-2 and analog. in FC (→GE) resulted from inadvertence, perhaps haste of the copyist. Characteristically, 8 of these oversights fall on the second part of the piece, b. 9-10 and 13-14.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 2

composition: Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

..

In FE1 the 4th and 5th semiquavers of the bar are b1-a1. It must be a mistake – it is likely that the engraver was influenced by the structure of the previous and the next two figures. The error was rectified in FE2; it is also all the remaining sources that include the correct version, analogous to b. 6 and 14.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 3-5

composition: Op. 28 No. 10, Prelude in C♯ minor

3 slurs in A (→FC,FE→EE)

Continuous slur in GE
..

The continuous six-bar slur of GE is one of the more glaring examples of the flippant approach of the Breitkopf engravers to the Chopinesque slurring – cf. the characterization of GE1 in the first movement of the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions