b. 32
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we omit the , unnecessarily repeated in the sources before the 5th semiquaver in the bar. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Cautionary accidentals |
||||||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor
..
The mark in A has all the characteristics of a long accent, which was reproduced in FC (→GE), but not in FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor
..
In A the mark practically reaches the last semiquaver in the bar and this is how it was reproduced in the majority of the remaining sources. According to us, in this context, Chopin could have meant only a long accent, as he clearly wrote 4 times in the next bar. EE considered – also probably on the basis of the marks in the following bar – that it should be an accent, which was given separately for the right and the left hands. See also the note in b. 33. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions |
||||||||
b. 32-33
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor
..
Adding a phrase mark concerning the L.H. in similar contexts is a revision of GE, quite frequently encountered in Chopin's pieces. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor
..
It is difficult to say what the reason was that the slur over the pair of the L.H. chords was overlooked both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC |