data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
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 c 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 CGS overlooked the vast majority of dynamic markings – except for two 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 |