mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 20-21

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering

Our variant suggestion based on FEJ & FES
..

As was the case with b. 16-17, FEJ and FES indicate the pass of the 1st finger in a different place. However, both copies are in agreement about the F minim, to which the 2nd finger is assigned in FEJ, and, implicitly (on the basis of b. 17), also in FES. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 22-23

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering

Our variant suggestion based on FEJ & FES
..

As in previous similar figures, in FES – differently than in FEJ – finger swaps were indicated on one key (the opposite situation is to be found only in b. 18).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 22-23

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

B1 tied in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE) & CGS

H1 repeated in FES

Our variant suggestion
..

A mark annotated on FES is probably meant to cancel the tie to B1. The repetition of B1 is also possibly suggested by the fingering written into FEJ – the fifth finger in sequence under B1 in bar 22, and B1 and B in bar 23. The repeated B1 in bar 23 may be seen as advantageous in view of the rhythm of the basic motif and the original pedalling. Taking this into account we suggest a variant version in the main text – a tie in parantheses.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 23-24

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

  in FE (→EE)

No markings in CGS
..

Just like in the similar situations in b. 1, 3 and 9, we consider the top arm of the  mark in A to be more reliable, although in this case the difference in length is insignificant. We regard the minor inaccuracies in the reproduction of the   hairpins in FC and GE as similarly insignificant. The marks in FE (→EE) were arbitrarily adjusted to the main beats of the bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , FE revisions

b. 23-26

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

in A (→FE→EE)

No sign in FC (→GE) & CGS

   in EE
..

The missing  mark in FC (→GE) is almost certainly a result of an oversight of the copyist. The omission of the mark in CGS is most probably of a similar nature. The addition of the  mark in b. 26 must be a revision of EE, quite frequent in Chopinesque first editions – cf., e.g. the Prelude in C Major, No. 1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , No pedal release mark , Errors of FC