Issues : Errors of FC
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
In FC the line ends in b. 4, and the slurs, both at the end of b. 4 and at the beginning of b. 5, indicate that the slur should be continued. In A the slurs between the lines also suggest a continuous slur; however, in the case of A the line ends earlier, already in the middle of b. 4. This was most probably the reason for the copyist's confusion: he did not pay attention to the difference in the layout while writing the slurs. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||
|
b. 6-9
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The slurring of FC (→GE) proves the copyist's distraction, perhaps due to haste. The change between b. 6 and 7 could be explained by an inaccurate interpretation of the ending of the slur added in A (Chopin must have meant leading the slur to the last semiquaver in the bar and not combining it with the next one). The broken slur between b. 7 and 8 probably is an inaccurate interpretation of A (the fragment of the slur at the beginning of b. 8 is poorly visible in A) or a mistake (b. 8 ends the line in FC, just as b. 7, which begins similarly, ends the line in A). The slur at the end of b. 8, which ends the line, implying that it should be continued may have simply been carelessly written down. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||
|
b. 7-8
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
In spite of the unequivocal notation of A, the L.H. slurs were reproduced erroneously both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE). Fontana omitted both slurs of A; however, he provided the triplets in b. 8 with conventional slurs (he also did it in b. 12). In turn, it is difficult to say what could have prompted the engraver of FE to combine the slurs, which is contrary to the notation of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||
|
b. 16
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The missing f2 crotchet in FC (→GE1) may be a result of an unfinished or failed correction of the pitch of that note – in the place where the stem of the chord ends, e2 was probably removed. Another possibility is a misrepresenting its notehead in A for a mere thickening at the end of stem. The copyist also omitted the arpeggio sign before that chord and the slur. The revision restoring a tolerably correct text in GE2 (→GE3) was most probably based on FE, which is indicated by an identical unification of the rhythmic values of the g1-b category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Different values of chord components , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors of FC |
1 third (in