|
b. 318-319
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In the main text we reproduce the unquestionable A slurs (→GE). The shorter FE slurs resulted from the inaccuracy of the copyist in [FC] or of the engraver (or both). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
|
b. 319
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In the case of a single mark, it is difficult to say whether its absence in FE resulted from an oversight or whether Chopin added this accent to A after [FC] had been finished. The length of this accent is also uncertain, particularly when compared with the mark at the beginning of bar 318. The interpretation we adopted is supported by (in addition to the musical context – long note) a combination of graphic factors – it is longer than the marks in bar 317 and narrower and tilted to a lesser extent than the accent in bar 318. The engraver of GE was also influenced by the mark's length to a certain extent – in this edition the respective mark is slightly longer than the previous ones. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||
|
b. 319
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The bottom note of the 2nd R.H. chord is a d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 320-321
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
At the beginning of bar 320 and at the end of bar 321, in GE, and on the basis thereof also in EE2, regular bar lines were replaced by double bar lines. It is an arbitrary decision, contrary to Chopin's practices in this respect – he did not use double bar lines automatically when changing time signature or key. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
in 
in