mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in teaching copies

b. 4-5

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

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

The addition performed in pencil in FES, hardly legible, especially in b. 4, most probably represents two digits (3) marking the fingering and written on the side.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 11-19

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

..

Both in b. 11 and 19, the grace notes in A (→FE→EE) are non-slashed, whereas in FC (→GE) – slashed. It is an inaccuracy that would often happen to Fontana-copyist, in this case almost certainly contrary to the intention of Chopin. The Chopinesque entries in FED equate the grace note and the crotchet with two quavers, which can be considered one of the performance possibilities of these motifs. We recommend a slightly shorter grace note, which could be written down as .
We give the variants resulting from the above differences of notation in the notes to b. 10-11 and 18-19.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Non-slashed grace notes , Fontana's revisions

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

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

The poorly legible addition in FES, performed in pencil, most probably marks fingering – it contains two marks, out of which the first is almost certainly a digit '3', which makes us suppose that the second will be a digit too, which we thereby interpret as a '5'. According to us, a similarly placed entry in FEJ, however, does not mark fingering, but a variant in the form of an f1 grace note. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

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