Issues : EE revisions
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
The fingering of the entire phrase comes from FEJ, and the only alternative entry in b. 1 – from FES. That fingering differentiation in those copies is most probably preserved also in identical b. 9. Anyway, it is very likely that the difference concerns only the d1 crotchet and the c1 quaver. We assume that both possibilities come from Chopin, even if they were not written by his hand. In turn, there are no grounds to consider the fingering of EE to be authentic, which we place over notes for the purpose of clarity. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ |
||||||||||||
b. 3-4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
In the main text we give the fingering of FEJ, complemented at the beginning of b. 3 by the digits drawn from FES, compliant with it in the part where it is written. In FEJ one can see corrections of fingering – in b. 3, '4' was changed to '3' over the d2 semiquaver, while in b. 4 the last three notes were initially provided with the following digits: 1 2 3.We assume that the change was introduced or indicated by Chopin. The authenticity of the initial version, which is otherwise completely natural in terms of piano performance, is more problematic, and the authenticity of the indication of EE, which is compliant with it, is practically ruled out. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ |
||||||||||||
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
In FEJ the mark referring to the e1 crotchet is illegible. According to us, it may be a fingering digit (2), written instead of a 'one' – it would then be the same notation that can clearly be seen in FES. The 1st finger on e1 in b. 6 visible in EE most probably also indicates that fingering. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ |
||||||||||||
b. 7-8
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
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. 9-10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
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 |