Issues : Inaccuracies in FC
|
b. 7-8
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor
..
The L.H. slur, which starts at the beginning of the Prelude, clearly reaches the 1st quaver in b. 8 in A. Nevertheless, both FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) considered it an inaccuracy and led the slur only to the last quaver in b. 7. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 25 No 6, Etude in G♯ minor
..
Same as in bar 4, FE, EE1 and GE1 misinterpreted here the abbreviated notation of FC and of the remaining Stichvorlage manuscripts, giving the 2nd, 3rd and 4th group of semiquavers without any accidentals. The mistake was corrected in EE2 (→EE3) and GE2 (→GE3). 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. 8-11
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
When interpreted literally, 3 consecutive slurs of A reach only the last quaver in the bar; moreover, the starting point of the slur in b. 9 is also not entirely clear (we assume that it is the 2nd quaver). Due to the reasons discussed in b. 1-2, we consider them to be inaccurate; in the main text we generally adopt the slurs of FE (→EE), compliant with the manner in which Chopin would correct in A some slurs in similar figures. In b. 9-10 the notation of the topmost L.H. notes on the top stave and writing them closer to the b category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 9-10
|
composition: Op. 25 No 4, Etude in A minor
..
It is unclear whether taking the decision to indicate articulation of the R.H. with the help of verbal indications, Chopin wanted to resign from the previously written staccato signs. Beginning from bar 11, Chopin deleted them in A, so that the fact of leaving them in bars 9-10 proves, according to us, an unfinished correction due to distraction. Hence our suggestion of the main text. However, Chopin could have left double indications (with words and signs) at the beginning of the new section on purpose. Taking into account visible inaccuracies resulting from graphical difficulties, it is the notation of GE2 (→GE3) that is the version which expresses this intention best. The version of FE and EE can also pretend to be authentic (accepted by Chopin). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||||||
|
b. 9-10
|
composition: Op. 25 No 4, Etude in A minor
..
It is not entirely clear which type of accents Chopin had in mind in these bars (similarly in bars 39-40). The second of them is undoubtedly a long accent, yet the first one, in spite of a seemingly analogous situation, can hardly be considered to be such an accent. As the notation of accents in the Etudes is not very precise, we consider it to be acceptable to see both signs as long accents. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FC |
1 minim opens an additional interpretation of the L.H. slur as reaching that minim. We include that possibility in the main text, regarding the version of 
