mUltimate Chopin

Select:

Category

Notation

Importance

Undo Clear

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next »

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.

Compare the passage in the sources »

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

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 9-10

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

in A (→FC→GE)

in FE

in EE

No markings in CGS

Just like in the similar situations in b. 1, 3 and 5, 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, and to an even greater extent in EE, were adjusted to the main beats of the bars (routine revision, like in analogous places).

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 11

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

in A (→FE→EE)

in FC

No sign in GE & CGS

The hairpin was reproduced inaccurately both in FC and FE (→EE); however, we consider that the change of the mark's range in FE has no impact on its meaning. The omission of the hairpin in GE and CGS must be oversights.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in FC

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 12-14

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

No accidentals in A (→FC→GE1)

Naturals in FE (→EE), GE2 (→GE3) & CGS

The version of A (→FC→GE1), in which these three bars are based on the c-e-g diminished chord, most probably resulted from an oversight of the naturals lowering c to c (in various octaves) by Chopin. The correctness of the version of FE (→EE) is mainly evidenced by three teaching copies bearing clear traces of having been developed with Chopin, in which the C major chord as the harmonic basis of those bars was not questioned; it is also evidenced by CGS, which was written by a person who was both close to Chopin and a witness to the creative process of the cycle of Preludes. The naturals visible in FC are an addition by H. Scholtz, coming from the 1870s. The change introduced in GE2 could have been drawn from FE or a result of an accurate analysis of the harmonic structure of the piece by the reviser.