Issues : EE revisions
b. 6
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major
..
FE overlooked the restoring e1 on the 5th R.H. quaver. The accidental was added in EE; it was also entered into FEJ, probably by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FEJ |
|||||||||
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major
..
We adda a cautionary before e1 in the main text. The accidental was also added in EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 20-21
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major
..
The slurs of A between b. 20 and 21 may be questionable – when interpreted literally, the latter begins before the bar line, which could be interpreted as two slurs coinciding on the f2 quaver. However, according to us, it is an inaccuracy that is more likely – cf., e.g. . In FC (→GE) Fontana assumed – wrongly, according to us – that Chopin wanted to combine both slurs here. In FE the slurs are ambiguous; however, it is not related to the notation of A, since in that edition continuation is suggested by the ending of the first slur (in b. 20, at the end of the line), which is not confirmed by the new slur in b. 21. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC |
|||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 11, Prelude in B major
..
We reproduce the grace note and the curved lines in principle after the notation of A, in which, however, the slur running from the grace note to the f2 minim is led under the notes and overlaps with the tie of the grace note, pointing downwards. It confused the interpreters of A:
EE2 supplemented the FE version with a grace note taken from GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors of FC , Fontana's revisions |