Issues : Inaccuracies in FC
b. 22
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
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
..
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 |