mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in teaching copies

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No fingering in A (→FE,FC→GE)

Fingering in EE

Fingering suggested by the editors, based on FES & FEJ
..

In the main text we give the fingering of FEJ, complemented at the beginning of b. 3 by the digits drawn from FES, compliant with it in the part where it is written. In FEJ one can see corrections of fingering – in b. 3, '4' was changed to '3' over the d2 semiquaver, while in b. 4 the last three notes were initially provided with the following digits: 1 2 3.We assume that the change was introduced or indicated by Chopin. The authenticity of the initial version, which is otherwise completely natural in terms of piano performance, is more problematic, and the authenticity of the indication of EE, which is compliant with it, is practically ruled out. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ

b. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

e1 in A (literal reading→FE,FC→GE), AB & EE2

e1 in ACh, CGS, EE1 & FES
..

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).
The double revision in EE is noteworthy – first a  was added in EE1 and then it was removed in EE2.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Annotations in FES

b. 3-7

composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Fingering written into FED

Fingering digit written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

In the main text we give the undoubtedly Chopinesque fingering entered into FED in b. 3 and 7. The key element of that fingering – the 4th finger for the g2 minim – was also added in FES. The 4th finger crossing over the 5th (typical of the Chopinesque fingering) and the 4th finger slipping down from a black to a white key were also indicated in analogous b. 22 and 78. See also b. 14, 15-16 and, e.g. the Sonata in B Minor, Op. 35, 3rd mov., b. 31 or the Nocturne in B Major, Op. 32 No. 1, b. 37.
According to us, indicating the 1st finger twice means that the notes should be performed by the R.H., but it is not explicitly marked (as it was done, e.g. in b. 9); they could also be performed by the L.H. However, the following reasoning is an argument in favour of the R.H. – all notes with beams on the bottom stave should be generally performed by the L.H., which, in this context, implies this very fingering, which, therefore, would not need to be marked at all. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES

b. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor

Fingering digit in FESch

No teaching fingering
..

In the main text we include the fingering entered into FESch, which could be coming from Chopin. Similar situations are in b. 6-7, 10, 12 and 15.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FESch

b. 4-5

composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor

Fingering added in FES

No fingering for teaching purposes provided
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES