Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 37-38
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
Five clear long accents in A were not correctly reproduced in any other source. In FC it is the last two and possibly the first one with arms of different length that could be considered long; we assume that it is only the last two accents that are long. FE and GE contain common, short accents, which was the most common way the Chopinesque long accents were interpreted by the engravers. The vertical accents of EE resulted from an arbitrary practice, typical of that edition. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 51-52
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
A separate slur over bar 52 is certainly a mistake by the engraver of EE who started one-bar-long slurs a bar too early. The ending of slur in bar 52 (at the end of line) is inaccurate in FE – it suggests a continuation not to be confirmed by the slur in the next bar. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||
|
b. 53-54
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
In A the accents in these bars are longer than in the next ones. The difference was considered insignificant both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE), which seems to be the right decision, since there is no visible reason why identical pairs of bars (53-54 and 55-56) would be accented differently. However, it could be that Chopin wanted the places to be performed in a more nuanced manner, particularly since b. 53-54 (but not 55-56) were initially provided with a category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Deletions in A , Inaccuracies in FC |
hairpin in