Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor
..
A (→FE) has a cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Errors of FC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor
..
The change of the number of beams introduced by GE is wrong – in a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 11-12
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor
..
In the main text, we add – as in bars 9-10 – separate wedges to the :\L.H. octaves. In the discussed bars, this notation also occurs in FE (→EE). The mark in b. 12 was overlooked in FC (→GE), and the other (a wedge in b. 11) was reproduced in GE as a staccato dot. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , FE revisions , Wedges , Errors of FC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 12
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor
..
Formally speaking, the version of GE is justified here; however, it is highly likely that Chopin wrote this group in semiquavers (like all the others) because he did not want to unnecessarily suggest a significant acceleration of movement. Such a notation is to be found in his pieces on a number of occasions – cf., e.g. the Prelude in D category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 12
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor
..
In A (→FC,FE1) there are no accidentals before the last semiquaver (in both hands), which, when interpreted literally, gives d1 and d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in FE |
before the 7th L.H. semiquaver, a
1. The accidental was omitted in 
bar, it is groups including at least 32 notes (but less than 64) that should be written as demisemiquavers. In this situation, the fact that this mistake was repeated in 
was added, yet only in the R.H., where it is a cautionary accidental.