Issues : Differences in fingering

b. 1-2

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

fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering in A (→FE,FCGE)

Fingering in EE

Our variant suggestion based on FEJ & FES

..

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 cquaver. 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. 9-10

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

Fingering written into FEJ

Fingering written into FES

No fingering in A (→FE,FCGE) & CGS

Fingering in EE

Our variant suggestion based on FEJ & FES

..

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

b. 15

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

..

In the main text we include the fingering of FES and FEJ, differing only in the way the 1st note of the phrase is attacked. Admittedly, FES marked the fingering only for the 1st note of the bar, yet the compliance of both versions of the fingering further on results from the entries in FES in analog. b. 19-20.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 16-18

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

..

In the ending of the phrase, starting from the last semiquaver in b. 16, FEJ and FES present completely different fingering versions. The only point in common, the 5th finger on D in b. 17, allows us to consider the fingering used before and after independently – e.g. the 1st finger can be used only just on A, as it is done in FES, but end with the 3rd finger on F, which was indicated in FEJ. In turn, the 3rd finger written in FEJ at the beginning of b. 18 does not combine with the second, with which the previous F note was marked in FES. In the FES itself, the minim in bar 18 is not marked with fingering – the sign below it do not form a digit in our opinion – so both notes in b. 18 were possibly to be performed with the 1st finger, clearly separating the phrases, in accordance with the slurring. It cannot be ruled out that one of the lines written there underlines such a separation.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

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