Issues : Errors in FE
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
FE, EE1 and GE1 misinterpreted the abbreviated notation of FC and of the remaining Stichvorlage manuscripts, giving the 2nd, 3rd and 4th groups of semiquavers without any accidentals. The mistake was corrected in EE2 (→EE3) and GE2 (→GE3). Similarly in almost all analogous places – cf. bars 8, 20 and 36, as well as 12 and 40. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The arpeggio mark written in A1 before the first chord was overlooked in FE (→EE), yet an arpeggio mark was added before the 2nd chord in the proofreading of FE2. In the main text we include both arpeggios, in accordance with GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
The slurs in A are clearly divided, hence it is unclear what confused the engraver of FE (→EE) and made him not take into consideration that division. The slurring of FC is obscure – the slur in b. 4, at the end of the line, does not suggest a continuation, yet the slur at the beginning of b. 5 clearly does. Consequently, it is also GE that feature a continuous slur here. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
In A this bar was written in two lines, which contributed to an ambiguous situation in the L.H. slurring – the slur written at the end of the 1st half of the bar, running from the F category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
In A there is a phrase mark over b. 1-4 and also another one, which, when interpreted literally, starts from the 2nd quaver in b. 5. Therefore, nothing indicates Chopin's intention to combine them, hence the interpretations of both FC and FE must be considered erroneous (besides, the copyist considered the division of the phrase mark in b. 7-8 and 8-9 to be accidental too). Moreover, we assume that the beginning of the phrase mark in b. 5 is inaccurate in A; according to our interpretation, it starts from the 1st quaver. It is justified by the fact that in a few other situations Chopin equated a phrase mark beginning between the 1st and 2nd quavers to a phrase mark running clearly from the 1st quaver, e.g. b. 1 and 9 or 29 and 31. See also the note to b. 54-55. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC |
demisemiquaver, has no ending in the new line. In the main text we adopt a natural interpretation of that notation – cf. the short slurs in b. 2-3 – adopted in 
