Slurs
|
b. 10
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
It is one of two bars in which As includes slurs. These two two-note slurs, eventually replaced with a longer phrase mark, can be considered to be an additional, more precise suggestion concerning the articulation and accentuation of this kind of motifs. According to us, it is, however, highly likely that it was the will to avoid an excessively fragmented articulation of these phrases that was the main motive of rejecting these slurs. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||
|
b. 12-13
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
On the available photocopy of A, the slur in bar 12 starts from the 3rd quaver. We shift the beginning one quaver earlier, analogously to bar 10. In FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2) the slur starts – undoubtedly erroneously – only in bar 13, however in bar 140, based on the notation of bar 12 in A, the slur of FE begins exactly on the 2nd quaver of the bar, which supports the solution we adopted. In later GE, the starting point of the slur was moved to the beginning of bar 12, most probably by analogy to the notation of bars 140-141 in GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 16-17
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
An additional slur at the transition between bars 16 and 17 embraces in A the last two quavers in bar 16. In FE (→EE,GE1no2) it was reproduced in a slightly inaccurate manner (the slur begins already after the 5th quaver and it is placed too low), which probably resulted in an erroneous beginning of the slur from the 6th quaver in the remaining GE. The range of the slur in analogous bars 144-145, based on the same notation of A, does not raise any doubts in FE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 17-18
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
Both the additional slur in bars 16-17 and the visible connection of slurs at the transition between these bars in A clearly prove Chopin's intention with regard to the phrasing in this place. The two-bar slur of AI cannot be considered to be a full-fledged variant in this situation, particularly considering the fact that Chopin did not write slurring in bars 9-16 in this autograph at all. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
|
b. 26-29
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
The isolated slur of AI does not pose a real alternative to the consistent slurs of A and the editions. In turn, it may demonstrate that while writing AI, Chopin still did not have a precise concept of slurring of bars 10-16 and 26-32 – perhaps he had already rejected the short slurs of As (cf. bar 10), but he still did not decide how to distribute the points of division of the planned longer slurs. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
