Issues : Errors of FC
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor
..
Fontana overlooked the pedalling markings (as well as almost all performance indications in this bar). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor
..
The missing staccato dot is an oversight of the copyist and the engraver of EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor
..
The absence of category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 17, Prelude in A♭ major
..
Fontana overlooked the dynamic hairpins in FC (→GE). The notation of A does not specify the range of the marks, since bar 2 was not written out with notes. We adopt the natural interpretation of FE (→EE). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
In all sources the number of mazurkas in the opus is expressed in full word – Quatre Mazurkas, yet in the main text we provide a digit, understandable regardless of the language. What is more, it cannot be excluded that in the autograph (lost) Chopin wrote a digit, as he did in the preserved autographs of opuses 24 and 50, which the French publisher did not respect in opus 24, replacing the digit with a word. In FC the title contains a mistake – Quatre Mazurka. The title having been expanded in EE was an arbitrary decision of the publisher – all opuses of Chopinesque Mazurkas were named like that. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of FC |
in 
in 
