b. 37-38
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
The difference in placing marks in GE and FE, generally in accordance with this kind of discrepancies in the entire Prelude, induces to consider both possibilities in the variant form. However, in this particular fragment we may suspect an inaccuracy of the notation of FE, therefore, we propose in the middle of bar 38, in accordance with all analogous bars. A similar correction of the mark's placement was applied in EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||
b. 37
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
FE1 is lacking in front of the second quaver, which was added in FE2 and EE. GE also has a correct text. See the remark concerning bars 28-37. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions |
|||||||
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
The notation of FE and GE is certainly inaccurate, which was corrected by the reviser of EE. Similarly in bar 46. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
The difference in placing the mark can be attributed to a not very precise notation of handwritten base texts of first editions, as in Chopin’s autographs the notation of pedalling is sometimes ambiguous. In the main text we propose one of the source versions. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||
b. 39-50
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
The placement of marks in bars 39-40 and analogous ones shows consequent discrepancies between GE and FE (→EE). According to the editors, both pedalling concepts are authentic and can be successfully applied in performance practice. Due to this fact, we propose a text in which they are juxtaposed in the variant form. category imprint: Differences between sources |