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. 16-17

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

..

In A, due to numerous corrections/crossings-out, the final version of the R.H. part is written in these bars on an adjacent stave, where one can also observe crossings-out. The majority of the crossed-out notation can be read; particularly, one can state that none of the corrections concerned the top voice, and in many places one of the crossed-out versions was identical to the ultimate one. It proves Chopin's hesitation.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Accompaniment changes

b. 17

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

No markings in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE) & CGS

& slur in FES (possible reading)

Our alternative, variant suggestion
..

FES contains vague signs in this bar, out of which two seem to have musical sense – a slur starting under the F minim and a  hairpin of a similar range. In the main text we do not include any of them:

  • the slur, basically doubling the printed phrase mark, is clearly a teaching remark, reminding of the need to hold a full rhythmic value of this note;
  • the interpretation of one of the lines as a  hairpin is subject to a certain degree of uncertainty – this line, together with the vertical line, may also be a diagonal cross, so typical of Chopinesque teaching entries.

As the  reasonably complements the  indication from the previous bar, we suggest the version including this sign as an alternative solution.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 18-20

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
..

Similarly to analog. b. 15, the fingering versions of FEJ and FES differ in the performing manner of the e crotchet in b. 19. For the remaining notes (until c in b. 20), both copies indicated the same fingering, yet in a different way. Under the f quaver in b. 19, FES initially contained the digit '1', which was then transformed into a '2'. According to us, it was not a change of a finger, but a correction of a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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

b. 19

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

c1-f1 in A

c1-g1 in FC (→GE), FE (→EE) & CGS
..

We give c1-f1 as the 2nd crotchet of the bottom voice, after A. The version of the remaining sources, c1-g1, is probably a mistake – both of the copyist and the engraver of FE – which could have been provoked by two factors:

  • the resemblance between b. 19 and 20;
  • a slightly higher position of the top note of the dyad in A, which may imply g1. The suggestion is enhanced by the fact that the bottom voice was horizontally moved with respect to the a1 note in the top one, as if they were supposed to constitute the interval of a second. However, having reviewed the Prelude in this respect, one realizes that similar shifts occur as a minor inaccuracy without any relation to the interval of a second – cf. the 2nd beat of b. 1, 3 or 15. Moreover, wherever Chopin wrote the c1-g1-a1 chord right away, without corrections, he wrote the bottom voice to the left-, and not the right-hand side of the quaver in the top voice (b. 15 and 20).

The fact that Chopin meant here a f1 is also supported by a stylistic argument – in analog. b. 15, featuring a B minor chord on the 3rd beat (like the discussed bar and unlike similar b. 16 and 20), a f1 was used. On the other hand, the absence of corrections in the teaching copies suggests that Chopin accepted the version with g1 during lessons, which can thus be considered an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate note pitch in A , Errors of FC

b. 20-21

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

No markings in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE) & CGS

2  in FES

Our variant suggestion
..

In the main text we include the most likely interpretation of the poorly legible Chopinesque teaching entries in FES.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES