Issues : Uncertain slur continuation
|
b. 50-51
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor
..
In A the slur in b. 50, which ends the line, suggests that it should be continued, which is, however, not confirmed by the new slur in b. 51. According to us, it is the ending of the slur in b. 50 that is inaccurate; this is how it was interpreted by Fontana in FC (→GE). The version of FE (→EE) may be considered an alternative interpretation of the ambiguous notation of A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||||||
|
b. 51-52
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
The separate R.H. slurs in these bars result most likely from a misunderstanding of the notation in A by the engraver of FE. Bar 52 starts a new line in A, and the beginning of slur clearly indicates a continuation. However, the slur in bar 51 extends only slightly beyond the bar line what might have mislead the engraver. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||||||
|
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. 52
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur written in A embraces only this bar, yet the slur in the next bar (on a new page of the manuscript) clearly indicates continuation. In the main text we assume that it is the second slur that determines Chopin's intention in this place. The slur of GE1 (→FE) is clearly erroneous, which was revised in EE and GE2. In that editions, a slur in the part of the L.H. was also added, which can be considered to be justified with regard to the consistent slurring of the parts of both hands in the remaining sections of this fragment (bars 44-45). If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was chosen, one of the first three source versions is to be selected here. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||||||
|
b. 64-67
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
In both manuscripts a new line of text starts from bar 65, resulting in inaccurate or erroneous notation of L.H. slurs. In A the end of slur in bar 64 clearly indicates continuation which is not confirmed by the beginning of slur in bar 65. In GC the slur ends in bar 64 and is not continued in the subsequent bars. The engraver of FE was not mislead by the inaccuracy of A. However, it probably caused an error in EE which starts a new slur from a new line (from bar 66, closely resembling bar 65 beginning a new line in A). GE amended the GC version by adding separate, bar-long slurs in bars 65-67 (probably generalising the slur written in GC in bar 68). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of GC , Uncertain slur continuation |
