b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
The version of CGS must be a mistake of the copyist. Cf. a similar mistake of the engraver of GE1 in b. 2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in CGS |
|||||
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 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 FC (→GE). In this situation, we consider the absence of the slur in FE (→EE) to be a mistake of the engraver. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in CGS |
|||||
b. 4-20
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major
..
In A (→FC) b. 4, 8 and 20 are written in an abridged manner with •/• symbols, which indicate that the preceding bar should be repeated. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Abbreviated notation of A |