Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 2-10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The slurs in b. 2 and 6 (as well as in b. 18) explicitly encompass already the grace notes introducing the trills. In this situation, we consider the slur in b. 10 to be inaccurate; in the main text we suggest a slur analogous to the remaining ones. The notation of FC is vague – three out of four slurs run rather from the 2nd grace note (only in b. 6 from the first one). As such a notation is musically unjustified, we assume that the copyist meant slurs starting from the 1st grace note in all places, which is how it was interpreted in GE. As far as the end point of the slurs is concerned, according to us, the notation of A in b. 6 and 10 points rather to boldly written slurs (which were obvious to Chopin) than tenuto-slurs led to the end of the bar (see, however, b. 18). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Inaccuracies in FC , Tenuto slurs |
||||||
|
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