Issues : GE revisions
b. 7-10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major
..
FCI does not contain any accidentals in the R.H. part in these bars. The missing sharps in b. 7 and 9 are a patent inaccuracy (formally speaking, a cautionary in b. 10 is not indispensable due to the presence of corresponding sharps in the L.H., i.e. raising c1 to c1). Such an incomplete notation was probably present already in the lost autograph that served as the basis for this copy, since it seems unlikely that the copyist would selectively omit marks on the top stave (see also b. 16-17). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of FC |
||||||
b. 14
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major
..
It is unclear how to interpret the mark in FCI. Due to the abridged notation of the L.H. part and the manner of writing semibreves more or less in the middle of the bar, it can be considered both a whole-bar hairpin (the mark begins under the d2-b2 sixth, i.e. at the beginning of the bar, and ends close to the end of the bar) and a long accent (it has the right length and position with respect to the sixth). Actually, a similar problem can be observed already in analogous b. 5, in which, however, we consider the mark written in A as a hint on how to resolve this doubt. In the discussed bar we give both possibilities, since the absence of the mark in A does not allow us to directly support any of them; moreover, the mark in FCI is slightly shorter than the one in b. 5. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Long accents , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 17
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major
..
In FC the rhythm in the 2nd half of the bar was written down as , which is a mistake. In GE it was changed to , which is understandable if we take into account the rhythm in the remaining similar situations. However, the reviser did not respect the position of that d2 in relation to the L.H. semiquavers – it is written right above the penultimate semiquaver, which suggests that it is the semiquaver flag that is a mistake, and not the missing second dot prolonging the e2 crotchet. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC |