mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major

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

Slurs

b. 16-17

composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major

Continuous slur in A (contextual interpretation→FE→EE)

Separate slurs in A (literal reading→FC→GE)
..

B. 16 falls in A at the end of the page, while the slurs are ambiguous – the ending of the slur in b. 16 goes slightly beyond the bar line, which may suggest continuation; however, it is not confirmed by the beginning of the slur in b. 17. In FC (→GE) Fontana considered it to be divided slurs, which, from the graphical point of view, is more likely. However, a comparison with analogous situations in b. 4-5 and 8-9, in which – particularly in the former – A features undoubtedly continuous slurs, tips the balance of probability in favour of the interpretation of FE (→EE), according to us.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 20-21

composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major

Separate slurs in A (→FE), contextual interpretation & EE

Overlapping slurs in A, literal reading

Continuous slur in FC (→GE)
..

The slurs of A between b. 20 and 21 may be questionable – when interpreted literally, the latter begins before the bar line, which could be interpreted as two slurs coinciding on the f2 quaver. However, according to us, it is an inaccuracy that is more likely – cf., e.g. . In FC (→GE) Fontana assumed – wrongly, according to us – that Chopin wanted to combine both slurs here. In FE the slurs are ambiguous; however, it is not related to the notation of A, since in that edition continuation is suggested by the ending of the first slur (in b. 20, at the end of the line), which is not confirmed by the new slur in b. 21.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC

b. 21

composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major

..

The slur combining the grace note with the f2 minim in A was omitted in all the remaining sources. See the note below.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 23

composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major

Separation mark in FED

Our variant suggestion
..

The mark, added most probably by Chopin in FED, probably indicates a small caesura inside the phrase. In the main text we include that marking in a variant form (in brackets).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 25-26

composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major

Continuous slur in A, literal reading (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

Separate slurs in A, contextual interpretation
..

In A the ending of the slur in b. 25 (at the end of the line) very suggestively points to continuation, which is, however, not confirmed by the slur in b. 26. Both FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) reproduced those inconsistent slurs as one continuous slur. According to us, musically speaking, it would be more convincing to divide the slurs, since b. 21-25 constitute a coherent whole, kept in one register and melodically and harmonically complete: , whereas the last two bars – sonically separated (lower register) – complement the entire Prelude. If we were to adopt such an interpretation, we would have to assume that the ending of the slur in b. 25 is inaccurate, which is only seemingly impossible – cf. the similarly elongated, certainly inaccurate ending of the slur in b. 27.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation