mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 31-37

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

2 slurs in bars 31-37 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur in bars 35-36 in FC
..

The missing phrase mark in b. 31-34 resulted from Fontana's distraction – he forgot to insert phrase marks in the 2nd half of the line of the text in FC, which encompasses these bars. The copyist also inaccurately wrote the ending of the phrase mark in the next bars, not having led it explicitly to the 1st chord in b. 37, as it is in A. The earlier version of slurring of b. 33-34 written down in A – see the note on those bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 37-38

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

5 long accents in A

Different accents in FC, possible interpretation

5 short accents in FE & GE

5 vertical accents in EE
..

Five clear long accents in A were not correctly reproduced in any other source. In FC it is the last two and possibly the first one with arms of different length that could be considered long; we assume that it is only the last two accents that are long. FE and GE contain common, short accents, which was the most common way the Chopinesque long accents were interpreted by the engravers. The vertical accents of EE resulted from an arbitrary practice, typical of that edition.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 40-41

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

Slur from 2nd beat in A (→FC, contextual interpretation→FE)

Slur from bar 41 in GE

Slur from 3rd beat in EE
..

From b. 41 on, A (→FC) is written down in an abridged manner – it contains empty, numbered bars, which are a repetition of b. 1-8. The phrase mark in b. 40 clearly suggests that it should be continued, which we interpret (in accordance with FE) as an earlier beginning of the first phrase mark of the repeated fragment. GE did not consider the phrase mark in b. 40 at all, while in EE it starts only just on the 3rd beat of the bar; besides, both versions cannot be authentic.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation

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