Issues : Inaccuracies in FC
|
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. 4-5
|
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. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
In the main text we give the slur of A (→FE→EE). The slur of FC starts a quaver earlier, whereas GE also moved its ending, which made it resemble the previous slurs, thus consolidating a distorted image of articulation of these figures – see the notes in b. 1-2 and 2-4. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
In A (→FC) the L.H. part is marked in an abridged manner as a repetition of b. 3. When expanding on that abbreviation, both FE (→EE) and GE omitted the accent, probably considering it to refer to the R.H. However, Chopin would actually associate accents with the L.H., which is proven by the notation of b. 12, in which the accent is put over the L.H. chord. In FC, unlike in A, the accents in b. 1-3 are placed closer to the R.H. part, which somehow justifies the omission of the accent in GE, but not the addition of a staccato dot in this place. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: GE revisions , Abbreviated notation of A , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 5-37
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In this context, the markings with which Chopin provided the crotchets in bars 5, 13, 29 and 37 in A may only denote staccato only, although it is not obvious whether he meant wedges or dots, since they clearly differ from dots (e.g. numerous dots extending minims or crotchets), yet their shape also does not bring to mind wedges or even vertical dashes, which could be easily identified with them. Due to that reason, in the main text we also suggest dots, next to wedges, as an alternative solution. In the remaining sources the notation of A was inaccurately reproduced; GE is an exception; in that edition the notation was unified to a form that is absent in those bars both in A and FC. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , FE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC |
