mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Corrections in A

b. 2-3

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

..

In A one can see crossed-out pedalling markings, according to which the pedal should be changed every half bar – 3 times  .

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 8-11

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

..

In A one can see that Chopin would prolong certain L.H. slurs by adding to the slur the 4th quaver of three consecutive halves of bars, A, B and d, respectively. A similar situation can be found between b. 11 and 12.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A

b. 16-17

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

..

The crossings-out visible in the L.H. part in A allow us to decipher the initial version of the ending of b. 16 and of entire b. 17, which is as follows: .

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Accompaniment changes

b. 18-21

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

..

All bass octaves in b. 18-20 and the first in b. 21 were provided with staccato dots in A, which Chopin then crossed out and replaced with slurs.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 22-23

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

b1 & b2 in A & FE2 (→EE)

b1 & b2 in FC (→GE)

b1 & b2 in FE1
..

Before the 7th semiquaver in A there was initially a  (cautionary due to B(1) in the L.H.), which Chopin turned to a . Fontana and the engraver of FE1 misinterpreted that correction by considering it a deletion of the accidental, hence FC (→GE) and FE1 does not contain any accidental before that note, which gives b1. When the figure is repeated an octave higher (at the beginning of b. 23) in FC (→GE), there is also no , which can be explained by an oversight (it would be a puzzling coincidence!) or by a revision, introduced in the belief that it is also here that the alleged crossing-out from b. 22 should be taken into account.
In both places, the naturals visible over the notes were added in FC by H. Scholtz probably in the 1870s.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , FE revisions , Errors of FC