b. 13
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
Both versions of the dynamic indications written in the teaching copies point to the use of the echo effect. In the main text we give the indications of FES, in which the idea of contrast is expressed in a clearer form. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ |
|||||||||
b. 13-14
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
Two marks in this bar are the only dynamic hairpins included in CGS. They were entered – just like the pedalling markings – without trying to reproduce their placement correctly. The minor differences in the remaining sources are of accidental nature, and we do not consider them to be equal. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
b. 13-14
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
In CGS the marks were written very inaccurately – by the end of each of the semiquaver groups. Moreover, the first mark was also omitted. It was most probably related to the lack of space under the bottom stave due to the low-placed beams (except for GE, in the sources the semiquaver stems are pointing downwards). It seems that the copyist cared more about an aesthetic entry in an album than about the precise placement of indications, which she could have considered obvious. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
b. 13
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
The EE version is certainly an engraver's mistake overlooked by the revisers of the subsequent impressions. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||||||
b. 15
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor
..
In the main text we add a cautionary before c1. The accidental was also added in EE2. category imprint: Editorial revisions |