Issues : EE inaccuracies
b. 5-10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor
..
In EE the L.H. slur in b. 5 – the first in a new line – begins from the 1st quaver, although the slur in the previous bar suggests continuation. The inaccuracy was most probably a side effect of the slur in b. 5-7 having been moved under the notes (though otherwise justified, since the notation of FE is illogical here: the slur in b. 1-4 is led under the notes, whereas its continuation in b. 5-7 – above). Inconsistent slurs between lines are also present in FC and GE – slurs in the bars opening a new line (b. 6 and 10 in FC and 5 and 9 in GE) run from the 1st quaver of the bar, contrary to the notation at the end of the preceding lines. (We do not reproduce the inaccuracies of FC in our transcriptions due to a different division into great staves.) category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||||||||
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
Just like in the similar situations in b. 1 and 3, we believe that it is the top arm of the mark in A that is more reliable. In FC Fontana averaged the length of the mark, which is one of possible solutions. We consider the mark in GE, slightly shorter than in FC, to be compliant with our interpretation of A. The mark of FE, stretched out, so that it covers an entire bar (and inaccurately reproduced in EE), is most probably a revision. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In A, the pair of dynamic hairpins was written as close as possible to the top voice so that it was clear that it concerned this very voice; the slightly shortened mark is a result of lack of space. For reasons of clarity, in the main text we move the marks over the stave. In GE (→FE,FESB) the mark was prolonged, which could be considered acceptable; however, as a consequence, the mark seems to concern the R.H. bottom voice too, which is exactly what Chopin wanted to avoid in A. In the version of EE, the original notation is distorted even more (due to lack of access to A). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In A, the short mark is placed in b. 6; however, since it reaches only the 1st crotchet in that bar, it is obvious that it concerns the f1-g1 step between the bars, which we give in the main text. The versions of editions are based on the interpretation of that mark performed by GE1, in which its right-hand ending is led to the 2nd beat of the bar, which has no basis in the notation of A. In spite of minor differences in the range of the marks in the editions, we regard them as different, since each may suggest a slightly different beginning or ending of the crescendo, while the mark in FESB actually resembles a reversed accent. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
In GC (→GE) the breath in the slur was moved to the turn of bars 6 and 7, due to inaccurate notation of GC. The continuous slur in FE and EE is also most easily attributed to an inaccurate interpretation of A, although the coincidence of two editions is puzzling here. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC |