Issues : Uncertain slur continuation
|
b. 71-72
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The slur starting in bar 71 in FE suggests that it should be continued, which is not confirmed by the beginning of bar 72 (in a new line), in which there is no slur. It is difficult to say whether it was also the case for [A], or whether this version resulted from the engraver's carelessness. In GE1 and EEW the slur of FE was interpreted literally, thus encompassing only two notes in bar 71. However, a comparison with bars 59-60 points to a slur reaching the e category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
|
b. 72-73
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The A slurs between these bars are unclear – the slur in bar 72, last in a line, led over the stave, suggests that it should be continued, yet instead of its continuation, in bar 73 there is only a short slur under the f1-e1 quavers. Both GE and FE (or perhaps already [FC]) considered the slur in bar 73 to be an ending to the slur in bar 72. Such an interpretation is supported by the slurs in analogous bars 159-160 and 239-240, hence it can be considered an equal variant. However, the comparison with the ending of the previous phrase (bars 70-71) suggests, according to us, another possibility – in A Chopin forgot to write the ending of the top slur, while the bottom one was supposed to emphasise the rhythmic gesture repeated a few times in subsequent bars. We suggest this version in the main text, which can be regarded as a contextual interpretation of A notation. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
|
b. 73-74
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In A there are no slurs over the last three quavers in bar 73. In the manuscript this bar ends a page, which allows us to consider the missing slurs, over the topmost pair of thirds and the beginning fragment of the subsequent one, to be Chopin's patent mistake. The ending of the second slur at the beginning of bar 74 visible on a new page proves the composer's oversight. Therefore, we do not consider the version without slurs to be a variant and provide it only in the graphic transcription (version "transcript"). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of A , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
|
b. 75-76
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In FE (→GE) the slur started in b. 75, the last on the page, has no ending in b. 76. The inaccuracy was corrected in EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Uncertain slur continuation , Errors repeated in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 76-77
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In A the slur in bar 76, last in a line, suggests that it should be continued, which is not confirmed by the slur at the beginning of bar 77. The comparison with analogous situations in bars 163-164 and 243-244, which are not at the beginning or end of a line in A, does not make it easier to guess Chopin's intention, since in bars 163-164 there is a continuous slur, whereas in bars 243-244 the slur is divided. In this situation, to the main text we adopt the FE solution, which could be considered compromise – the slurs meeting on the 1st quaver in bar 77. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
2 minim as the right one, which we give in the main text. In 
