Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
The missing accent in FC (→GE) resulted from the distraction of the copyist, who overlooked the marks from the entire first line of A. In FE (→EE) this long accent was reproduced as a half-bar diminuendo hairpin, which more or less corresponds to the length of the mark in A, but does not include the fact that it should be placed under the a1 crotchet only. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of FC |
|||||||||
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
As was the case with b. 3, in A the long accent is placed right under the note; however, in FE it was moved to the right, hence it could be interpreted as a hairpin. This is how it was reproduced – moving it even further to the right – in EE2 (EE1 omitted the mark). The absence of the mark in GE is most probably an oversight of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
|||||||||
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
The later starting point of the slur in EE is probably a result of a minor inaccuracy of FE, in which the slur is moved to the right, which could have confused the engraver of EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||
b. 30
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||
b. 38
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
In the main text we give long accents after A (→FC). However, both FE (→EE) and GE reproduced them as short accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |