Slurs
|
b. 276-283
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
As in bars 109-116, in GE the L.H. part slurs were added, yet this time only under the octave sequences. This arbitrary addition was repeated in EE2 as well. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 279-280
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In the main text we provide the unquestionable A slur, compliant with the one present in A in analogous bars 112-113. The GE and EE slurs, although compliant with the potentially authentic FE slur in the mentioned bars, cannot be coming from Chopin. The authenticity of the FE slur with a clearly wrong ending is also questionable. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 281-282
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In the main text we provide the version of the sources, compliant with the slur present in A in analogous bar 114. To an alternative suggestion to the version of the sources we adopted an extension of the slur in bars 114-115, most probably coming from Chopin. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 283-286
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The fact that the starting point of the slurs is consistently different suggests that Chopin wrote them independently first in A after [FC] had been finished and then in [FC] or FE1. In both places, in A in bars 285-286 and in FE in bars 283-284, the slurs do not reach the next bar. According to us, these are inaccuracies of notation, while in A it is so obvious that we provide a literal interpretation of this slur only in the graphic transcription. The missing slurs in GE1 in bars 283-284 and in EE1 in bars 285-286 are definitely of an accidental nature. The former was added by GE2, starting from the minim. The slur that was overlooked in EE1 was added by EE2 on the basis of GE1. In the main text we provide a contextual interpretation of the A slurs, consistent with the slurs in analogous bars 116-119. We consider the slurs based on the FE version, with the first slur having been extended, to be an acceptable variant. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 285-286
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In the main text we provide the L.H. slur after the A notation. In GE1 the range of the slur was adjusted to the R.H. slur, and it was in this form that the slur was repeated by EE2, whereas in GE2 the A version was restored. It is difficult to say what the motives of EE2 were when adding another slur of the same range – it could have been, e.g. an unfinished correction in which one of those slurs were supposed to be replaced by the other, yet the stage of removal of the superfluous slur was overlooked. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
