b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
In the main text we include the R.H. fingering added in FEJ, controlled by Chopin. In this Prelude, as an exception, we give the fingering from the teaching copies without brackets, since it does not contain any other authentic fingering, which eliminates the need to differentiate between the teaching entries and the printed indications, which are "universal", so to speak. At the same time, we take into consideration the fact that due to the abundant number of those indications, brackets could have unnecessarily complicated the notation, obscuring the picture of the music. Therefore, we give the almost certainly inauthentic fingering of EE over notes, to differentiate it from the teaching fingering, placed under or – in special situations – before notes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies |
||||||||||||
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
The fingering of the entire phrase comes from FEJ, and the only alternative entry in b. 1 – from FES. That fingering differentiation in those copies is most probably preserved also in identical b. 9. Anyway, it is very likely that the difference concerns only the d1 crotchet and the c1 quaver. We assume that both possibilities come from Chopin, even if they were not written by his hand. In turn, there are no grounds to consider the fingering of EE to be authentic, which we place over notes for the purpose of clarity. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ |
||||||||||||
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
The range of the hairpin in b. 1 is difficult to determine in A – the top arm is much shorter than the bottom one. According to us, it is the range marked by the top arm, written first, that was intended by Chopin. It is compliant with dynamics, naturally resulting from the shape of the melodic line, and this is how it was reproduced by Fontana in FC (→GE). That interpretation is also supported by the range of the hairpins in analog. b. 3 and 9 (as well as 23), in which the range of the top arm remains unchanged, unlike the considerable and rather accidental changeability of the bottom one. The differences in the length of the mark in b. 2 seem to be inaccuracies (in FC, not affecting the meaning) or routine revisions (in editions). CGS overlooked the vast majority of dynamic markings – except for two in b. 13-14. According to us, it is an oversight of the copyist. Similar problems and differences occur in following, similar bars 3-5, 9-11 and 23-24. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
In A one can see that the initial tempo marking was Largo. Cf. changes of markings in adjacent Preludes. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A |
||||||||||||
b. 2-18
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
Initially, Chopin marked the two-quaver motifs with an accent and a slur – as he did in b. 1 – also in b. 2-6, 11-16 and 18. All those markings were then crossed out – after the three accent/slur combinations in b. 1, Chopin left only one more at the end of b. 22, which, actually, gave it a special meaning. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A |