Slurs
|
b. 82-83
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In A the slur over the last triplet in bar 82 ends already beyond the bar line; however, it does not seem that Chopin would have like to lead it to the 1st quaver in bar 83 (cf. analogous notation in analogous bar 78). The continuous FE (→EE) slur may be considered an equal variant. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
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. 85-89
|
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. 93-94
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
It is difficult to conclusively say where the differences in the L.H. part slurs come from. We could assume that Chopin was adding slurs to the initial text, with no slurs – cf. the note on bars 68-75 – and that the way he did it in A differed from the one he did it in [FC] or FE1. Such a scenario is supported by the situation in analogous bars 260-261, in which there are no slurs in the L.H. in FE, which could be explained by the fact that Chopin overlooked them while adding slurs to this edition or to the basis thereof, [FC]. Both source versions, undoubtedly authentic, may be considered equal variants; in the main text we give the slurs of the principal source, that is A. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||
|
b. 94-95
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In A the slur encompasses bars 93-94; although its ending reaches beyond the last note in bar 94, nothing suggests that it should be led to the next bar (the beginning of the slur precedes the 1st octave in bar 93 by about the same gap, it is a typical example of the Chopinesque encompassing slur). This is how it must have been interpreted by the copyist in [FC] and, on the basis thereof, by the engraver of FE (→EE). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Embracing slurs |
