Issues : Annotations in teaching copies
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor
..
According to us, it is much more likely that the missing restoring e1, which would result in e1 at the end of the bar, is one of numerous such oversights of Chopin – see, e.g. the note to b. 8 and 12 as well as to the Prelude No. 7 in A Major, b. 13 or No. 18 in F Minor, b. 8. Therefore, we assume that the flats entered or added in ACh, CGS and FES define or restore the only correct text, which we adopt as the main one. However, the version with e1 has a consistent place in the history of music, e.g. as the theme of variations of Feruccio Busoni (BV 213a) and of Sergei Rachmaninoff (Op. 22). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Annotations in FES |
|||||||
b. 12
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor
..
In the version prepared for print, as well as in ACh, Chopin did not mark the scale of the final crescendo. However, such markings are present in AB and CGS and in FED. In the main text we suggest (in a variant form – in brackets) the written by Chopin in FED, since it is the only addition to the text of A (→FE) coming directly from the composer. According to us, the authenticity of the indication of CGS also seems to be highly likely, which is a consequence of a long, close acquaintance between the copyist and Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources |