Slurs
|
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
In AI, in which there is no upbeat, the slur begins from the first sixth. In As the slurs appear only occasionally, in bars 10, 32 and 89, and it is only there where we mention the slurring of the draft. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||
|
b. 4-20
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
The slur, added in later GE in bar 4 certainly after an authentic slur in analogous bar 20, can be considered to be a justified addition to the version of A and the remaining editions. In the main text, however, we preserve the differentiation between bars 4 and 20 in this detail, as it may suggest a subtle performance nuance. (In As and AI, in which the 2nd and 3rd crotchets are identical, the slurs are absent both in bars 4 and 20.) category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 5-22
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
Both slurs over the pair of minims in bars 5-6 and 21-22 in A are clearly longer than in bars 1-2 and 17-18. Similarly in AI (only in bars 5-6, since Chopin overlooked the slur for the second time), hence these are the slurs we give in the main text. Double slurs in FE are probably a result of Chopin's proofreading – initially, the engraver of FE combined with a slur only the bottom notes of the sixths, which led the composer to add upper slurs (the original state was preserved in the majority of GE). According to us, the correction is occasional and it rather confirms the importance of a slur over the notes than proves a change of the slurring concept. Similarly in bars 133-134 and 149-150. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||
|
b. 8-25
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
It is not easy to evaluate how the difference between the slurring of sources in bars 8-9 (and similarly in bars 24-25) occurred. A includes two slurs in both places, although for the first time, when bar 8 appears at the end of the text's line, one could consider the slur in bar 9 to be a continuation of the previous. One-bar slurs are also in AI (except for bar 9, devoid of a slur). In this situation, one has to assume that the slurs of FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2→#GE2op2), combined in both places, could have been a result of Chopin's intervention. However, without being sure in this respect, in the main text we give the slurring of A, confirmed by AI. The version of FE, with a phrasing combining structural divisions (cf., e.g., the Waltz in A category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||
|
b. 10-11
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
The absence of slurs both in AI and in FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2) certainly does not express Chopin's intentions – in the manuscript the slurs were overlooked until bar 16, whereas FE lacks in them also in bar 12. In FE it is bars 138-139 that prove the accidental oversight, in which a slur compatible with A was most probably added by Chopin in the last stage of proofreading. The phrasing mark is also absent in As, in which, however, Chopin wrote two motivic slurs. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions |
1 in 
No. 3, bars 40-41), characteristic for Chopin, particularly in later pieces, can be considered to be (perhaps) an authentic variant.
