|
b. 49-53
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
In the main text we include the fingering entered by Chopin into FES. In turn, nothing indicates that the different fingering of EE could be authentic. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES |
||||||||
|
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
It is difficult to indicate which element of notation of FC could have misled the engraver of GE1. The absence of a respective correction in GE2 proves that the revision was implemented with the aim of detecting manifest errors; compliance with the Stichvorlage was not the main goal. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
In the main text we give the Chopinesque fingering entered into FED. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 50-52
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
Formally speaking, the revision of GE2 is justified – in the "voice" provided with a stem pointing upwards, the bar is incomplete. However, Chopin would rarely enter rests in such situations; an oversight of dots extending minims seems to be highly unlikely due to the fact that the notation of these chords was corrected a few times, including the crossed-out rest on the 3rd beat of b. 51. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , GE revisions , Deletions in A , Accompaniment changes , Changed phrase length |
||||||||
|
b. 54
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
The absence of this bar in FC (→GE) must be Fontana's mistake, a so-called haplography, i.e. omitting one out of two identical elements of writing, e.g. letter, syllable, word, etc. while copying. See also the Prelude No. 12 in G category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
Minor, b.