mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Omission of current key accidentals

b. 17

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

..

In A there are no naturals raising b to b and B to B. The accidentals were added both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Omission of current key accidentals , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 25

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

..

In A there are no naturals raising b to b. The patent inaccuracy was corrected in FC (→GE) by adding a  only before the grace note, while in FE (→EE) in the way adopted in the main text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions

b. 27

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

..

A is missing the  raising b1 to b1. The patent inaccuracy was corrected both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions

b. 34-36

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

..

A (→FE) is missing accidentals before the quavers ending the first L.H. figures in b. 34 and 36. The necessary sharps raising f to f were added in FC (→GE) and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Omission of current key accidentals , Fontana's revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in FE

b. 42

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

g in A (→FC,FE →EE)

e in GE, contextual interpretation
..

In GE the 3rd semiquaver in the 2nd half of the bar is an e note, which is a patent mistake in itself; however, if we take into account a possibly overlooked , it constitutes a harmonically plausible version in which we could even see subtlety, so typical of Chopin, since the g seventh is exposed in the R.H. part. Nevertheless, nothing suggests that Chopin could have participated in the development of GE, hence the authenticity of this version cannot be confirmed.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , Omission of current key accidentals