Issues : Errors in FE
b. 22-23
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
Lack of sustained B in FE is doubtless a mistake, as we can conclude from the presence of the tie in GE (and EE) and from analogous bars, e.g. 8-9 and 12-13. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||
b. 22
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
The fact that FE (→EE) have got a mistaken version here is testififed by the version of GE and a hand-written correction in FEJ. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Annotations in FEJ |
|||||||
b. 22-23
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
Lack of sustained B in FE is doubtless a mistake, as we can conclude from the presence of the tie in GE (and EE) and from analogous bars, e.g. 8-9 and 12-13. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||
b. 42
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we propose a more precise notation of the 2nd half of the bar, considering the elements of the most precise sources of notation in similar situations – FE1 in bar 8 and GE in bar 22. In the described bar, we propose to include both e2 and g2 into harmonic legato, as both of them subsequently appear in the chord at the beginning of bar 43. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE |
|||||||
b. 43
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
In FE1 the notes of the 2nd crotchet c2-a2-c3 are erroneous and in FE2 they were "corrected" to c2-a2-c3. In EE an appropriate revision was performed, which changed the chord to c2-a2-c3. The latter undoubtedly correct version is also in GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , FE revisions |