|
b. 6
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major
..
FE overlooked the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FEJ |
|||
|
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
GE overlooked the crotchet stems prolonging the A notes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||
|
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
The absence of a slur is certainly an error by the engraver of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||
|
b. 6
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
At the end of the bar, one can see a crossed-out category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A |
|||
|
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 |
restoring e1 on the 5th R.H. quaver. The accidental was added in 
marking in 
