Issues : Inaccuracies in FC
b. 15
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The shorter slur is an inaccuracy of Fontana, who considered the slur to be related to the triplet marking. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||||||||
b. 15
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor
..
The slur in A, which initially reached the 5th quaver in the bar, was shortened by Chopin by one quaver. That correction was not taken into account both by Fontana and the engraver of FE – in FC and FE the slur encompasses the entire bar. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||||||||
b. 15
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor
..
In this bar Chopin again marked the articulation of the chords only over the R.H. part. As the performance cannot differ from the one in b. 13-14, in the main text we add marks also under the L.H. chords. Such a solution was adopted both by FC (→GE) and FE (→EE). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||||||||
b. 16-19
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor
..
In the notation of A it is not entirely clear where Chopin wanted to begin stretto or how far the dashes marking its range are supposed to reach. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the remaining sources reproduce those details differently, which we consider inaccuracies, with the exception of the version of GE, in which the dashes are led as far as to the beginning of b. 19, which is clearly contrary to the notation of FC. In the main text we assume that stretto is to be combined rather with g2 than a1 and that the dashes reach f1 in b. 18. The major divergence from the Chopinesque notation is to be seen in CGS, in which stretto is written in the middle of the 1st half of b. 16 and the dashes only just in the 2nd half of b. 17, as a result of which it is actually unclear how they are to be considered jointly (in that copy, just like in FE, the entire indication is placed between the staves). It was probably caused by lack of space between the staves. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A , Errors in CGS |
|||||||||||||||||
b. 16-19
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 14, Prelude in E♭ minor
..
In A b. 16 ends a line, while the hairpin ends quite clearly beyond the bar line. Perhaps this was the reason it was combined with the mark in b. 17-19, which resulted in one long . According to us, such an interpretation is unjustified, since in two previous lines the hairpins in A also go beyond the bar line, which is almost certainly merely an inaccuracy (cf. also the inaccurate, overlapping marks in b. 5-6 and 9). Therefore, in the main text we keep the separate marks, particularly since the latter begins only just on the 2nd beat of b. 17. It was also Fontana that did not reproduce the notation of A correctly, since he started writing the mark in b. 17 already at the beginning of the bar, but did not write its ending in b. 18-19. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , FE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC |