|
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
The version of GE must be a mistake of the engraver – nothing points to any involvement of Chopin in the creation of that edition, and it is difficult to find a reason for a revision there. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
The crossings-out visible in A allowed us to decipher the initial rhythm of b. 5: category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Main-line changes |
|||||
|
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
GE overlooked the crotchet stems prolonging the A notes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
The absence of a slur is certainly an error by the engraver of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||
|
b. 6
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
At the end of the bar, one can see a crossed-out category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A |
1 in 
. According to us, it is likely that it was also the last a1 note in b. 6 that was initially a quaver – it is indicated by a denser notation, which points to a semiquaver rest having been possibly added, as well as by the difference in the shape of the flags next to that note, which would suggest that they were entered at different times.
marking in