mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in FEJ

b. 12

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Fingering written into FED, FEJ & FES

No teaching fingering
..

In three out of four teaching copies, we find identical Chopinesque entries, indicating a swap of fingers on the c1 note (from 1st to 2nd). The entry in FED is clearest, whereas the one in FEJ – most difficult to read.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 12

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Grace note written into FEJ

No grace note in remaining sources
..

As a whole, the entry in FEJ is difficult to interpret. The part written on the stave creates a quite distinct, small, slashed f1 or g1 quaver. The context speaks strongly in favour of f1 – a repetition of a note in the form of a grace note, preceding a larger interval upwards (most often an octave), is often to be found in pieces by Chopin, cf., e.g. the Polonaise in E Major, Op. 22, b. 56, Bolero in A Minor, Op. 19, b. 160 or Scherzo in B Minor, Op. 31, b. 302. In such a context, the grace note generally facilitates the performance by enabling a change of finger, in the discussed place of the Prelude from 3 to 1 or 2. The version with the grace note can be considered an equal variant with respect to the main text.

As far as the marks added below the stave are concerned, they can be seen as, e.g. a diagonal cross (often encountered in teaching copies), a very stooped , alternatively a digit '1' (the 1st finger on the added grace note) and a slur. We consider the latter to be most likely, hence we include it in the transcription of the text of FEJ.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEJ