Issues : 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. 63-64
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In A the slur ends abruptly at the end of bar 63. In this bar, however, the slur line is dashed due to the running-out pen, hence it is uncertain whether the visible ending of the slur was the one intended by Chopin. In bar 64, at the beginning of a new page, there is no ending to the slur. Nevertheless, both GE and FE (→EE) led the slur to the beginning of this bar, which means that both readers of A – the copyist and the engraver of GE – assumed that the slur in bar 63 suggested that it should be continued. In view of the doubts concerning the reliability of the A notation, in the main text we give its interpretation adopted by the editions. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
b. 64-67
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slur of FE starts from the beginning of the line of text; at the same time, its beginning suggests continuation from the previous bar. That fact indicates that the initial part of the slur was overlooked, which we amend in the main text by starting the slur at the beginning of the two-part progression. The slur was identically prolonged in GE3. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||||||
|
b. 65-66
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The fact that the slur was not continued after the transition to a new line in FE1 is almost certainly an oversight, corrected – probably by Chopin – in FE2 (→EEW). The mistake was also noticed and corrected in GE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain slur continuation |
