mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D 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. 15

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

L.H. slurs in A (→FE→EE) & GE

No slurs in FC
..

In FC, Fontana overlooked the slurs which were added in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 16

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

..

In A the L.H. part was corrected by Chopin, most probably a few times – after having introduced corrections into the initially written text, Chopin crossed out the whole and rewrote it on a stave below. The starting point were undoubtedly two identical figures, since in the crossed-out version, the second was marked in an abridged manner as repetition of the first. Chopin started then changing the 2nd semiquaver – one can see there d and B, placed on the same stem, but slightly smaller and darker. In addition, one can see a spot under the  raising d to d; the spot looks like a removed (crossed) B note. It suggests that three versions were being tested – with d, B and a B-d third as the 2nd semiquaver of both figures: 
, , .
(NB. In A there is not a single  raising B and b to B and b here, also in the final version).

It is unclear what the order of the versions was. However, taking into account the gaps between the notes, the separate B note having been crossed out and the differences in the size and colour saturation of the noteheads (which indicates that they were written at different times – it particularly concerns d an B placed on one stem), we consider the order given above to be likely.
Interestingly enough, in analogous b. 34 Chopin wrote only one version without a second thought; it corresponds to the second of the ones presented above. It implies that the order of the first two versions could have been reversed in the discussed bar – first the version with B, then with d and the third. However, it is less likely due to the gaps between the notes. 

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Accompaniment changes

b. 16

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

 in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

 suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we give a trill with a wavy line, although all sources feature only . Chopin would write trills with wavy lines or without them, which does not influence the performance in the case of an ornament with a written-out ending.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 16

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

..

FE (→EE1) omitted the dot prolonging the crotchet b1. The error was corrected in EE2, the remaining sources also have the correct text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 17

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

Quaver in A (→FE→EE)

Crotchet in FC (→GE)
..

As there are no visible corrections in FC, the f3 crotchet present in FC (→GE) must be a result of an oversight of the copyist, who overlooked the quaver flag while writing down this note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC