|
b. 17
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
The version of GE1 must result from the engraver's mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
According to us, the position of the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 21-22
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
The double slur of A (→FC) in b. 21 and the abridged notation of the R.H. part in b. 22 posed problems to the engravers, as far as the interpretation is concerned. In the case of b. 21, the top one is a tenuto slur, sometimes used by Chopin even for single notes, which was not a common practice in his time. FE considered it a slur for the entire R.H. part and omitted the bottom slur, whereas GE stretched it to the next bar, which resulted in an ambiguous curved line – a slur or a tie of b1. In b. 22 there is only a •/• mark on the stave, yet Chopin wrote the top slur above it, which, according to us, does not mean that he forwent the bottom one; however, the editions interpreted it so. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 21-22
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
The missing tie of B is either a mistake of the engraver of FE or a liberal interpretation – initially, it was also f category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 21-22
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
The missing staccato dots in FC in b. 22 and in GE, in both bars, are probably an oversight of the copyist and of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Errors of FC |
1 in 
under L.H. part in 
