|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 17, Prelude in A♭ major
..
According to us, the fact that the more specific tempo indication was abandoned in the final version of the Prelude may mean that the shape of the piece had crystallized – the double indication of FCI actually introduces an element of uncertainty, which suspends the tempo of the piece somewhere between Allegretto and Andantino. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Changes of tempo markings |
|||||||||||
|
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 17, Prelude in A♭ major
..
To write down these bars in A, Chopin used repeat marks – / to mark the L.H. part in the 2nd half of b. 1 and •/• in b. 2. In FC repeat marks were used only in b. 2. The highest number of repeat marks is to be found here in FCI – all those visible in A as well as / instead of the R.H. part in the 2nd half of b. 1. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Abbreviated notation of A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 1-6
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor
..
None of the editions based on manuscripts reproduced all 4 slurs over the pairs of chords in bars 1-2 and 5-6. EE1 overlooked yet 2 out of 3 slurs in FE. The complete set of slurs in EE2 results from a compilation of the slur of EE1 with the slurs reproduced from GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
FE erroneously gives d instead of c category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions |
as the last L.H. quaver in each of these bars. The errors, caused probably by this note in bar 1 being written somewhat imprecisely in