mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 22

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

2 slurs in A

4 slurs in FC

Continuous slur in FE (→EE) & GE
..

In A each of the two R.H. slurs encompasses – unlike in the L.H. – the repeat sign, marking the 2nd and 4th beats of the bar, respectively. Therefore, they are two half-bar slurs, which we give in the main text. In FC the slurs are clearly shorter, hence they are to be interpreted as encompassing only one group of demisemiquavers, which, after taking into account the repeat signs, results in 4 slurs in this bar. Both FE (→EE) and GE misinterpreted the slurs of the manuscripts as one slur over an entire bar.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 30

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

 & long accent in A, literal reading

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in FC (→GE)

  in FE (→EE)
..

The  mark in A is clearly shorter than the respective one in analog. b. 28, hence one could interpret it as a long accent. According to us, it is more likely that, in the face of the preceding it  mark, Chopin meant a diminuendo hairpin. In the main text we keep the slight difference in the range of the marks between those bars, visible in A. Both FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) clearly extended the  marks, whereas FC (→GE) also shortened the  mark. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC