mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in FES

b. 11-12

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

Fingering written into FED

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering

Fingering suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we give a fingering resulting from the complementary and partially identical entries in FED and FES. The constant position of the thumb on c2 is noteworthy. See also the fingering in b. 15-16 and 16-18.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 12

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

c1 in A (literal reading→FE,FC→GE1)

c1 in EE, GE2 (→GE3), FED & FES
..

The version of A (→FE,FC→GE1), without a  before the 3rd quaver in the bar, almost certainly resulted from Chopin's mistake, which is confirmed by the flats he wrote in FED and FES. In FC there is also no  before the 7th quaver, most probably due to an oversight, since in A the accidental is poorly visible due to the crossing-out showing through the page. Admittedly, both flats are visible on the photo of FC; however, they were added there much later by H. Scholtz, which explains the absence of the former in GE1 (the latter was added thanks to the  in the R.H.). The fact that those flats were added later is evidenced by their font (they are clearly bigger than the ones written by Fontana) and by the intensity of blackening, pointing to a pencil.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Annotations in FES , Errors of FC , Errors repeated in FE

b. 15-16

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

Fingering written into FED

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering

Our variant suggestion
..

In the main text we combine the complementary or compliant fingering versions of FED and FES. Some of the entries of FED are not obvious – in the interpretation we adopted we include both the shape of the very marks and the pianistic naturalness of the fingering they describe. Wherever the fingering versions entered into both copies differ, we give both versions in a variant form (the last quaver in b. 15).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 15

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

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

The 3rd finger on d2 indicated in FES can be seamlessly combined with the fingering in the further part of this bar, in which the entries of FED and FES are highly compliant – see the next note. However, the fingering written in the previous bar in FED indicates that it is the 2nd finger that should be used on that note, which is even clearer in b. 16-17. However, since the 2nd finger was not explicitly indicated and since the 3rd finger can also be easily combined with the previous fingering, we include it in the main text.
NB: There is a small, diagonal line over the discussed note in FED; it resembles a 1. As was the case with b. 4, one can have doubts whether it is actually a fingering digit, since if we assume the default legato articulation, the 1st finger (contrary to the entry in FES) would hamper natural phrasing here.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 19

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

Crotchet g in A (→FC)

No crotchets in FE (→EE1) & GE

Crotchets g & a in FED, FES & EE2
..

The stem prolonging the g quaver was overlooked both in FE (→EE1) and GE). Chopin added it in FED and FES; moreover, in both copies he also prolonged the last a quaver. We consider that addition, most probably introduced independently in each of the copies, a development of the original idea and adopt it to the main text.
It remains a mystery how the reviser of EE2 found out about those prolonged notes. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , Errors in GE , Annotations in FES