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
Fingering
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Fingering

b. 7-8

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

Fingering written into FEJ

No fingering in A (→FE,FC→GE) & CGS

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text we include the fingering entered into FEJ. The different fingering of EE is almost certainly inauthentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FEJ

b. 7-8

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

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

In the main text we include the fingering written in FES, partially confirmed also by FEJ.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 9-10

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

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No fingering in A (→FE,FC→GE) & CGS

Fingering in EE

Our variant suggestion based on FEJ & FES
..

It is difficult to decipher the fingering of FES. In b. 9 under the d1 crotchet, there are two digits, one above the other, while the bottom one, '1', seems to be crossed out. Therefore, one could assume that the 'one', written first, was crossed out and replaced with a 'two'. However, according to us, such an interpretation is wrong – had the 'one' been written first, it would have been placed higher, closer to the note. Consequently, the apparent crossing-out is most probably a curved line indicating the change of fingers, as was the case with b. 1. In b. 10 the 1st digit could be interpreted as a '4', which, however, would be completely unjustified – cf. the fingering in the same source in analog. b. 2. A more accurate analysis of the entry reveals that it is most probably an awkwardly written '3', which results in a full compliance both with the entry in FEJ and the fingering in b. 2.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information

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

b. 12-13

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

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering

Fingering suggested by the editors, based on FES & FEJ
..

In the main text we combine the compatible entries of FEJ and FES.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 15

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
..

In the main text we include the fingering of FES and FEJ, differing only in the way the 1st note of the phrase is attacked. Admittedly, FES marked the fingering only for the 1st note of the bar, yet the compliance of both versions of the fingering further on results from the entries in FES in analog. b. 19-20.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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