|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
We give Chopin's fingering written into FED in the main text. However, nothing indicates that the fingering in EE could have come from Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED |
||||||||
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
Nothing indicates that the fingering in EE could have come from Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The crossed-out g2 note before the final a2 note, which can be seen in A, and the e2 note, added clearly later, prove that the last 3 semiquavers in the bar were initially f2-g2-a2. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Main-line changes |
||||||||
|
b. 6-9
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The slurring of FC (→GE) proves the copyist's distraction, perhaps due to haste. The change between b. 6 and 7 could be explained by an inaccurate interpretation of the ending of the slur added in A (Chopin must have meant leading the slur to the last semiquaver in the bar and not combining it with the next one). The broken slur between b. 7 and 8 probably is an inaccurate interpretation of A (the fragment of the slur at the beginning of b. 8 is poorly visible in A) or a mistake (b. 8 ends the line in FC, just as b. 7, which begins similarly, ends the line in A). The slur at the end of b. 8, which ends the line, implying that it should be continued may have simply been carelessly written down. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 6
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
Nothing indicates that the fingering in EE could have come from Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
