Issues : Annotations in teaching copies
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text we include the slur for the L.H. added in a proofreading of GE – cf. an analogous slur in A in bars 91-92 – even though it is not entirely certain whether it was added by Chopin. The undoubtedly erroneously shortened slur in the R.H. in FE made the reviser of EE perform a similar change in the part of the L.H. The mistake of FE was corrected with an entry in FED, performed in pencil. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The absence of a dynamic indication is most probably an oversight of the engraver of FE. The addition of category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants |
||||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato
..
The missing dot extending the crotchet in the metronome marking in the editions is most probably a mistake. The dot is also imperceptible on the photo of FED, which – provided it is a faithful reflection of the situation – is also an inaccuracy. The slightly calmer tempo indicated by Chopin in FED could have been a teaching comment directed to Miss O'Méara only, hence it cannot be considered a proof of modification of the tempo concept of Andante. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a variant solution. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED |
||||||||||||
|
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major
..
In the main text we include the fingering entered by Chopin into FES, confirmed by an equivalent entry in FED, also Chopinesque. The much more abundant fingering of EE must be inauthentic; in addition, despite its initial compliance with the Chopinesque additions, it is almost certainly different from the one envisioned by the composer (unjustified use of the fingers 4-2 a sixth apart at the end of the 1st half of b. 1). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES |
||||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
In the main text we include the R.H. fingering added in FEJ, controlled by Chopin. In this Prelude, as an exception, we give the fingering from the teaching copies without brackets, since it does not contain any other authentic fingering, which eliminates the need to differentiate between the teaching entries and the printed indications, which are "universal", so to speak. At the same time, we take into consideration the fact that due to the abundant number of those indications, brackets could have unnecessarily complicated the notation, obscuring the picture of the music. Therefore, we give the almost certainly inauthentic fingering of EE over notes, to differentiate it from the teaching fingering, placed under or – in special situations – before notes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies |
in 
indication written in 
= 69 in 
= 69 in 
