Issues : Errors in FE
b. 3-4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
The inconspicuous little slur of A was overlooked both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE). The absence in CGS – see b. 1-9. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC |
||||||||
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
The slurs in A are clearly divided, hence it is unclear what confused the engraver of FE (→EE) and made him not take into consideration that division. The slurring of FC is obscure – the slur in b. 4, at the end of the line, does not suggest a continuation, yet the slur at the beginning of b. 5 clearly does. Consequently, it is also GE that feature a continuous slur here. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
In A this bar was written in two lines, which contributed to an ambiguous situation in the L.H. slurring – the slur written at the end of the 1st half of the bar, running from the F demisemiquaver, has no ending in the new line. In the main text we adopt a natural interpretation of that notation – cf. the short slurs in b. 2-3 – adopted in FC (→GE). In this situation, we consider the absence of the slur in FE (→EE) to be a mistake of the engraver. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
b. 10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
The arms of the hairpin in A are of a different length. In the main text we interpret it on the basis of the bottom, shorter arm, while FC (→GE) took into account rather the top one. The absence of the mark in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
b. 11
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major
..
Like in the previous two bars, we assume the bottom arm of the hairpin in A to be reliable. The mark is absent in all the remaining sources, which is almost certainly a result of oversights:
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in A |