Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor

  b. 30

		d1-d2 in A (→FC,FE), contextual interpretation
		d1-d2 in A (→FC,FE), possible interpretation, & GE1 & EE
		d1-d2 in GE2 (→GE3)

There are no accidentals before the last octave in A (→FC,FE), which results in d¹-d², which is a patent mistake. However, it is uncertain which mistake was committed:

• Chopin could have considered the  lowering the bottom note of the octave to d¹ to be superfluous in the face of the previous  resulting in d². Similar inaccuracies are very frequent in the Preludes (see, e.g. the note to b. 27-32); therefore, the intended version would be a d¹-d² octave.
• Chopin could have forgotten about the effect of the  next to d² on the 2nd quaver in the bar – such overlooked cancellations of accidentals are among the most common inaccuracies of the Chopinesque notation. Therefore, the intended version would be a d¹-d² octave.

The analysis of the notation of the 3rd crotchet in b. 30 in A, including the crossing-out before the last octave in the bar, does not give strong grounds to favour one of the above versions. There is a crossing-out before the discussed octave; it most probably covers a  restoring d² and a vertical line (?) before the bottom note. It can be seen that:

• the version featuring d¹-d² must be authentic, although does not have to be final;
• the correction of the chromatic notation was performed inaccurately, as it resulted in an erroneous notation;
• the aim of the correction could have been the change of d¹-d² to d¹-d².

According to us, the last of the above statements, based on a natural interpretation of the crossing-out of the  restoring d² as an intention to change d¹-d² to d¹-d², is highly unlikely, from the psychological point of view. Replacing a typical dominant seventh in E minor with its minor version constitutes a radical harmonic change, which Chopin would have precisely marked. In turn, leaving an erroneous chromatic notation could be quite likely if the essence of the introduced change were something else; something that captured Chopin's attention. That something could have been the addition of bottom notes of the octaves on the last beat of the bar, which would then initially look like as follows:  (analogously to b. 32). Upon seeing the  restoring d², Chopin wanted to write a  also before the recently added d¹, but he realized that it was superfluous and – misled by that – crossed out also the one written before next to the top note. In this scenario, the correction concerned a textural problem, and not the harmonic contents, which explains Chopin's lack of due concentration in marking the pitch of the notes he considered obvious, since they were not changed.

In turn, the stylistic analysis of b. 29-32 is a strong argument in favour of the d¹-d² octave. In fact, b. 31-32 are generally a repetition of b. 29-30; in both pairs of bars the harmonic course leads to an E minor chord (at the beginning of b. 31 and 33). In this situation, it is much more likely that the corresponding chords in both two-bar sections are identical (except the first).

GE1 and EE added a  lowering d¹ to d¹, while GE2 introduced a version compliant with our main text – it added sharps before both notes of the discussed octave.

^* Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger demonstrated that the Prelude in G Minor had already been composed at the time A was being developed and required only minor improvements. Świat muzyczny Chopina, Cracow 2010, pp. 151-153.

Compare the passage in the sources »

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

issues: EE revisions, Omissions to cancel alteration, GE revisions, Errors of A, Errors repeated in FE

notation: Pitch

Go to the music