![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
b. 1-3
|
composition: Op. 19, Bolero
..
In FE there are no separate fermatas for the octaves in the L.H. The marks were added by the revisers of GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In the main text we give a wedge as the staccato mark over the 1st quaver in the R.H. Wedge is present in both preserved autographs, i.e. Afrag and A1. We do so because the engraver of GE1 reproducing the notation of [A2] inaccurately seems to be more likely than a change of this detail while writing [A2] (an example of such an inaccuracy is FE1, in which dots are present wherever A1 clearly features wedges). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges |
|||||||||||
b. 1-5
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
In the main text we give 5 long accents placed between the staves, which corresponds to the unequivocal notation of A1. The notation of GE1 is generally compliant with the above, although it is difficult to say conclusively whether they are short or long accents on the basis of GE1 only; anyway, they are slightly longer than the majority of the accents in the middle section of the Mazurka. The version of the remaining editions, with short accents over the top stave, must be a result of routine revision: the engravers of FE and GE2 reproduced the marks in the same manner, yet independently. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 1-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major
..
The differences between the sources result from mistakes and inaccuracies of both the copyist and the engravers of FE and GE. However, the issues concerning the decipherment and the interpretation of A were caused by, e.g. a dense notation, without spaces between the staves – actually, in A there is no space for pedalling markings, added later, which resulted in them being placed inaccurately at times. The interpretation of A given in the main text corrects the position of the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
The range of the CGS overlooked the vast majority of dynamic markings – except for two Similar problems and differences occur in following, similar bars 3-5, 9-11 and 23-24. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |