Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
The continuous phrase mark of FC (→GE) is a mistake of the copyist – the phrase marks in A are clearly separated, and their shape does not indicate that they should be combined. In FE b. 4 ends a line, while the phrase mark in b. 4 suggests that it should be continued, which, generally, is not confirmed by the phrase mark in b. 5 (cf. the beginning of the next line in FE). Considered as a whole, however, the notation of FE may be misleading, which explains the presence of a continuous phrase mark in EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of FC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 36-38
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
In FE1 the crotchets in the middle R.H. voice are placed between subsequent quavers in the top voice, closer to the previous than to the next one, with which they are to be played. It can result in doubts as to the synchronization of both voices:
In FE2 the R.H. crotchets were moved so that they clearly combine with the following, uneven quavers. We do not reproduce this difference in our transcriptions (it does not influence the sound if read carefully). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in FE , 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. 63-64
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
The continuous slur possibly results from conviction by both Fontana in FC (→GE) and the engraver of FE (→EE) that the cause of slurs in A being separated is just another pause in the ink feed to the tip of the quill, as in b. 61-62 (as well as 66). In the editors' opinion the shape of the slurs rather indicates that they are intentionally separate. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 65-66
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
The two long accents we give in the main text come from A. The copyist overlooked the second one in FC (→GE), and short accents in FE result from inaccurate recreation of A. The vertical accents in EE are an arbitrary revision characteristic of this edition. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of FC |
