b. 63-66
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we adopt the more precise indication of FE1 (→EE). The partially lacking dashes indicating the scope of crescendo in FE2 is certainly a result of the engraver's negligence. It is possible that their total absence in GE is also an error (cf. the remark concerning bars 55-58). According to us, both the earlier placement of crescendo in GE and the placement of the indication above the upper stave in FE (→EE) may have resulted from the lack of space between the staves. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||
b. 63-65
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
We consider the accents which are only in GE as an enhancement introduced into [A2]. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
b. 63-66
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
It is hard to consider the difference in the placement of marks in FE1 (→EE) and GE as an incidental inaccuracy. Without any doubt, both versions can be applied in practice, therefore, according to the general approach to pedalling differences in this work, we propose a variant solution. In FE2 the version of FE1 was recreated with errors. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions |
|||||||||
b. 64
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
The sources differ in the presence of cautionary accidentals: before c are in GE and FE2; the before the grace note d1 is in FE (→EE). The sharps before f and f1 were added by us. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Cautionary accidentals |
|||||||||
b. 65
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
Lack of before the grace note in GE is certainly a mistake. The text of the remaining sources is correct. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |