Issues : Errors in EE
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
The long accents written in A (→FC) were not reproduced correctly in any of the editions. Both the shorter marks in FE and their omission in GE could have been related to a very dense and not always rational vertical text layout. The change of the accents' font in EE is a revision, typical of that edition, while the omission of the third mark – an oversight. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||
b. 9
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
There is no restoring f2 in the last group of demisemiquavers in EE1. It is most probably an oversight of the engraver, rectified in EE2. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
|||||||||||
b. 12
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
Nothing indicates the authenticity of the EE version – it is arguably the engraver's mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||||||||
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
The engraver of EE1 overlooked restoring d2 on the 4th demisemiquaver on the 2nd beat. The accidental was added in EE2. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |