mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

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. 3-4

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

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in A (possible interpretation→FC)

  in FE (→EE)

  in GE

No markings in CGS
..

As was the case with b. 1-2, we consider the top arm of the  hairpin in A to be reliable. In all the remaining sources (except for CGS, in which the marks were overlooked), it was the range of the bottom arm that was taken into account. In the editions, both marks were extended or moved, most probably after their own, general editorial principles.

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. 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. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

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