mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

a-c1 tied in A (→FE→EE)

a-c1 repeated in FC (→GE1)

c1 tied in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The missing ties of the a-c1 third must be Fontana's mistake in FC (→GE1). GE2 (→GE3) added only the tie of c1; perhaps it is a result of an incompletely implemented revision – in analogous b. 35 both ties were added.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

Ties in A (→FC,FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

No ties in GE1
..

The missing ties of c1 and e1 are one of a few mistakes of the engraver of GE1 in this place – see adjacent notes. All were corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 8

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

Quaver in A (→FC), contextual interpretation (→FE→EE)
..

The chord in the R.H. part in A (→FC→GE) is a crotchet, which, along with the rests filling 5 quavers, adds up to 7 quavers. The way the R.H. part is distributed over the R.H. shows that the excess rhythmic values are to be looked for on the 2nd or 3rd quaver – either Chopin forgot to write a quaver flag to the stem of the chord or he unnecessarily wrote a rest over the 3rd L.H. quaver. In the editors' opinion the former – an erroneous oversight of one element of notation – is more likely than the latter – entering a superfluous rest. Adding a quaver flag is also how this passage was corrected in FE (→EE).
GE repeated the mistaken rhythm after FC, and what is more, erroneously placed all 3 rests following the chord in the 2nd half of the bar, over the 3 L.H. octaves (the identical error in distribution.of rests was also comitted in FE).

The erroneous notation of the sources is reproduced in the graphic transcription ("transcript" version). In the content transcription ("edited text") we interpret the text of A, FC and FE in accordance with the correction introduced in FE, and the text of GE the alternative way.

The chord in the R.H. part in A (→FC→GE) is a crotchet, which, along with the rests filling 5 quavers, results in 7 quavers. The mistake was corrected in FE (→EE) by adding a quaver flag to the stem of the chord. We also believe that the notation should be corrected like that:

  • such a rhythm results from the way the L.H. part is written under the R.H., especially in the 1st half of the bar;
  • an erroneous oversight of one element of notation – a quaver flag – seems to be more likely than entering a superfluous or wrong rest.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of A , FE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

b. 8

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

..

In GE the last L.H. octave is erroneously a quaver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 23-24

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

..

The crossings-out and corrections visible in A reveal that Chopin initially wrote 4 bass octaves as dotted crotchets. 

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A