b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor
..
The addition performed in pencil in FES, hardly legible, especially in b. 4, most probably represents two digits (3) marking the fingering and written on the side. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor
..
In As the is placed at the pitch of e, and not g, which must be an inaccuracy, which can happen even in the most carefully finished autographs, e.g. in the Etude in E Minor, Op. 10 No. 6, b. 36. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information issues: Accidental below/above the note |
||||||||
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major
..
In FC (→GE1) the b1-a1 semiquavers are not separated as quavers. The patent mistake of the copyist was corrected in GE2 (→GE3). See also b. 36. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC , Errors repeated in GE |
||||||||
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
When interpreted literally, the version of A (→FC→GE1), in which the 4th demisemiquaver on the last beat of the bar is an a1, is most probably a mistake, although the interval structure of the four middle demisemiquavers (from the 3rd to the 6th in the eight-note figure) is strictly analogous to the seven preceding figures. It is indicated by a broader tonal context of this phrase and of the entire Prelude – the second of those four notes is never altered, while the key to which Chopin returns in the 2nd half of that bar is F minor, and not F major. A natural was added – most probably by Fontana – in FE (→EE); an identical addition was also introduced in GE2. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , FE revisions |
||||||||
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 |