Issues : FE revisions

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. 9-10

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

  in A (→FCGE)

  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).  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions

b. 12-14

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

No accidentals in A (→FCGE1)

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

..

The version of A (→FCGE1), 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. 23-24

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

  in FE (→EE)

No markings in CGS

..

Just like in the similar situations in b. 1, 3 and 9, 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 (→EE) were arbitrarily adjusted to the main beats of the bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , FE revisions