|
b. 85-90
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In 3 out of 4 similarly structured bars (bar 86 and 89-90), Chopin wrote in A a slur combining the top note of the 1st chord with the 1st quaver in the 2nd half of the bar. The absence of a similar slur in bar 85 is a patent inaccuracy – 3 bars featuring slurs are written in one line, whereas the one without the slur – in the preceding line (another factor could be the 6th quaver in this bar having been written on the bottom stave, which hampered the leading of the slur). In the main text, based on the principal source (A), we do add this slur. The fact that in GE1 the slurs are placed under the bottom L.H. notes resulted from routine procedures aimed at standardising the notation (changes of stem direction and moving accidentals to the notehead side). On the other hand, 4 slurs in FE (→EE) placed under the L.H. part probably resulted from Chopin's proofreading (perhaps already in [FC]) rather than from revision, since the slurs in analogous bars 172-173 and 176-177, in which A is devoid of slurs, were placed in the same manner. In the main text we provide the probably authentic FE slurs as an option (in brackets), since none of the sources includes slurs in both positions at the same time in these places. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 85-90
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The arpeggios before the tenth chords in bars 85-86 and 89-90 were added to [FC] or at the stage of proofreading FE1; it is undoubtedly Chopinesque, e.g. due to the use of vertical slurs, typical of him. According to us, the addition should also be applied to all further similar bars including tenths or tenth chords. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 85-89
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
It is only FE and EE2 that include all slurs linking the grace note with the 1st quaver in bars 85-86 and 89 (the slur in bar 90 is present in all sources). It most probably resulted from Chopin's additions to [FC] or at the stage of proofreading FE1, while in the case of EE2 it was a correction of the oversight in EE1. The versions with a smaller number of slurs resulted from Chopin's inaccuracies in A and from oversights in EE1 and GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 85-90
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In A the first out of four category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
|||||||||||
|
b. 86-89
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In A (→GE) and FE Chopin provided the top notes of the minim chords in bar 86 and 89 (g) and the 3rd quaver in bar 86 (g1) with naturals (cautionary?). The unjustified accidentals were removed in EE; we also omit them in the main text. The EE revision was performed only just while proofreading the print copy, which is proven by the clearly visible traces of deleted marks. Interestingly, traces of removal of the category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign |
of different length in 
to g1 can also be seen in bar 89, which means that an initial revision was performed prior to printing, in which this 
to d
in bar 86.