|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major
..
It is evident that Chopin's final decision concerning the tempo of the Prelude was Vivace. The change was almost certainly related to a distinct change of concept of the piece, which was also reflected in other performance markings, which often differ between FCI and the other sources. Moreover, the markings of FCI are more detailed in a number of places, cf., e.g. the category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major
..
It seems that the title written in FCI was not added later; therefore, Fontana already knew the name of the piece and its position in the entire cycle at the time of writing (however, it does not prejudge the title of Chopin's autograph). Consequently, the copy comes from the time when Chopin already had a clear vision of the cycle of preludes and was working on completing them. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major
..
It seems that the dynamic markings modelling the figuration were not accidentally overlooked by Chopin in A; it was rather a conscious decision related to the general change of concept of the Prelude – see the note on the tempo indication. Chopin would often cross out such marks in autographs, e.g. in the Scherzo in B category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major
..
The ambiguous abbreviation used in FCI – leg. – could generally be explained as leggiero; however, if that were the case, it is the abbreviation legg. that would be more rational. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that it was supposed to be legato. (Cf. a similar problem in Lento con gran espressione WN37, b. 6-7.) The change of the grammar form of the indication in EE – which has no influence on its musical meaning – could have been inspired by the uncertainty about the linguistic correctness of the term used by Chopin. Indeed, the then prevailing form of that adverb was leggermente, alternatively, leggiermente. However, as it does not appear in any of the sources, we keep the Chopinesque indication, which, after all, is perfectly clear in terms of its meaning. Cf. a similar situation in the 3rd mov. of the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, b. 81 and 317. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
hairpins under the L.H. semiquavers in 
Minor, Op. 31, b. 
e leg. in 
