mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 12, 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
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 51-52

composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor

Continuous slur in A (→FE,FC→GE)

Separate slurs in EE
..

A separate slur over bar 52 is certainly a mistake by the engraver of EE who started one-bar-long slurs a bar too early. The ending of slur in bar 52 (at the end of line) is inaccurate in FE – it suggests a continuation not to be confirmed by the slur in the next bar.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 53

composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before c2.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 53-54

composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor

Long accents in A, literal reading

Short accents in A, contextual interpretation (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

In A the accents in these bars are longer than in the next ones. The difference was considered insignificant both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE), which seems to be the right decision, since there is no visible reason why identical pairs of bars (53-54 and 55-56) would be accented differently. However, it could be that Chopin wanted the places to be performed in a more nuanced manner, particularly since b. 53-54 (but not 55-56) were initially provided with a  hairpin in A, which was eventually crossed out. Actually, one can never rule out a nuanced performance in similar situations, even when the indications do not differ; therefore, we suggest the long accents, interpreted literally, as an alternative version. 

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

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

b. 53-56

composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor

No marks in A (→FE→EE)

4 staccato dots in FC

Dot in bar 53 in GE
..

It is difficult to say what Fontana's motivation was when he was providing 4 subsequent L.H. chords with staccato dots, which are absent in A. One of the possibilities is a misinterpretation of the notation of A – in b. 54-55 under the quaver flags one can see the protruding endings of the stems of the chords with typical, small hooks, which are a consequence of the act of writing: the hand moves to the place where the next element of notation will be written, but the pen is detached from the paper too late. The hooks constitute small protrusions that can be regarded as dots from a distance. GE reproduced only the first of those dots.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Fontana's revisions

b. 61

composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor

Long accent in A (→FC)

No mark in FE (→EE1)

Short accent in GE & EE2
..

The typical long accent written in A was reproduced in FC less vividly, as a result of which GE gave a short accent. FE (→EE1) overlooked the mark, while EE2 added it after GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE