|
b. 50-56
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
These bars, although not written out in the manuscripts, are provided in A with a phrase mark encompassing b. 48-58. Therefore, we should assume that the phrase mark is supposed to replace the slurring featured in the respective bars the first time (b. 34-40). In turn, the omission of that phrase mark in FC indicates that it should be the slurring of b. 34-40 that should be repeated, which was implemented in GE (in this version the phrase marks in b. 35-39 = 51-55 were overlooked by the copyist by mistake). A solution consisting in repeating the slurring featured the first time was also adopted by FE (→EE). That version, based on the slurring of A referring to the actually written down text of b. 34-40, and not empty bars, can be considered an equivalent variant. Our two alternative suggestions are of a similar nature – the first is based on the version of FE, yet it takes into account a more likely interpretation of the phrase marks of A in b. 34-35 = 50-51, whereas the second is a compromise between the version with three phrase marks and the version of A with a continuous phrase mark. The above suggestions are based on the questionable range of the phrase mark of A in the discussed bars, which questions the credibility of its literal interpretation – see the note on b. 57-59. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 55
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
As was the case with b. 39, of which the discussed bar is a literal interpretation in the manuscripts, in the main text we keep the notation of A (→FE→EE1). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Fontana's revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 57-59
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
The phrase mark written in A under b. 48-58 reaches more or less the middle of the last bar (those bars are only signalized and do not contain notes). Having taken into account the contents of that bar, we get a phrase mark reaching the D category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , FE revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 58-59
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
The phrase mark in A ends in b. 58, near the beginning of the bar – it is difficult to determine, since it is one of the bars written down in an abridged manner, without notes. We assume that it reaches the 1st chord in that bar. However, both FC and FE interpreted the ending of that phrase mark differently – in FE it was led to the end of the bar, whereas in FC even further (in FC the bar ends a line while the phrase mark goes beyond the stave), which in GE was reproduced as a phrase mark running to the 1st chord in b. 59. Taking into account the fact that the ending of that phrase mark is most probably inaccurate in A – see below, the note on the L.H. phrase mark – both versions can be considered possible interpretations of the notation of A. In the main text we suggest yet another solution, based on the following, additional assumptions:
That version was also introduced by EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||||||
|
b. 58-59
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
The abridged notation of repeated quavers as minims provided with quaver tremolos (appearing for the first time in these bars in FE) misled the engraver of EE; he wrote out the abbreviations in full but kept the dots being part of the abridged notation. Consequently, these bars contain erroneous staccato dots in EE. In b. 59, an arbitrary slur was also added to the dots. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
in 
-d
