mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Fontana's revisions

b. 3

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

..

In A (→FE) there is no  raising f1 to f1. The manifest inadvertence was rectified in FC (→GE) and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors of A , Fontana's revisions , Errors repeated in FE

b. 9-10

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

Slur to end of bar 9 in A (literal reading→FE→EE)

Slur to bar 10 in A (possible contextual interpretation→FC→GE)
..

The slur of A does not reach b. 10; however, it cannot be ruled out that this is what Chopin's idea looked like – cf. the next two slurs in this phrase. Fontana implemented that possibility in FC (→GE); it even seems that he was prolonging that slur on purpose.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Fontana's revisions

b. 37

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

..

In A this bar is added on a stave below; the place in which it should be inserted is also marked. The addition of the bar could have been related to the changes of the rhythmic values of the final cadence, which was initially a bar longer.
In FC the bar was marked in an abridged manner as repetition of the previous one. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Fontana's revisions

b. 41

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

Arpeggio from G in FC (→GE)

Arpeggio from g in FE (→EE)
..

It is unclear how the two curved lines written in A before the chord with a grace note should be understood. It is certain that they determine the division between hands; however, they can also indicate an arpeggio (both or the top one only). Both Fontana in FC (→GE) and the engraver of FE (→EE) interpreted Chopin's notation as an arpeggio. Nevertheless, although Chopin would often mark arpeggios with vertical curved lines, particularly later in life, in the autograph of the Preludes he still used conventional, vertical wavy lines – cf. the Prelude No. 10 in C Minor, the endings of the Prelude No. 2 in A Minor, No. 3 in G Major, No. 5 in D Major, No. 8 in F Minor, No. 9 in E Major as well as b. 7 in the Prelude No. 13 in F Major and the beginnings of phrases in the Prelude No. 23 in F Major. Therefore, in the main text we leave the notation of A; according to us, it is most likely that it should be implemented in the form of a non-arpeggiated chord of both hands preceded by a grace note. The performance indicated by the remaining source versions – a continuous arpeggio of an entire chord of both hands and an arpeggio only in the R.H. – can be considered variants.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Fontana's revisions

b. 41

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

Unslashed grace note in A

Slashed grace note in FC (→GE) & EE2

Small crotchet in FE (→EE1)
..

In the main text we keep the Chopinesque notation of the grace note as small, non-slashed quaver. The remaining source versions are inauthentic – slashing grace notes was a constant manner of Fontana, while overlooked flags are one of the most frequent mistakes of FE. After all, in this context, those versions are equivalent, since Chopin quite often did not attach importance to the form of notation of grace notes – cf., e.g. the Prelude No. 2 in A Minor, b. 5 and analog., or the Mazurka in G Minor, Op. 24 No. 1, b. 41.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Fontana's revisions