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

Pitch

b. 1-2

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

  in A (contextual interpretation→FC)

  in FE (→EE)

  in GE

No markings in CGS
..

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. 5

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

 in A (contextual interpretation) & GE

  in FC

  in FE

  in EE

No marking in CGS
..

Just like in the similar situations in b. 1 and 3, we believe that it is the top arm of the  mark in A that is more reliable. In FC Fontana averaged the length of the mark, which is one of possible solutions. We consider the mark in GE, slightly shorter than in FC, to be compliant with our interpretation of A. The mark of FE, stretched out, so that it covers an entire bar (and inaccurately reproduced in EE), is most probably a revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions

b. 7

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

..

The sources feature a  before g1, as in the previous bar. It is not necessary here, and we omit it in the main text.

category imprint: Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information

issues: Cautionary accidentals

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.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , FE revisions , Last key signature sign

b. 15

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

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before c1. The accidental was also added in EE2.

category imprint: Editorial revisions