Slurs
|
b. 10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
The missing slur over the 1st L.H. figure must be Chopin's mistake. The slur was added in both sources based on A, perhaps not even having noticed its absence. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of A , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 15-18
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
In A (→FE) b. 15 and 17 fall at the end of the line, and the slurs running over them go quite clearly beyond the bar lines, thus suggesting a continuation. However, the slurs in b. 16 and 18 rather do not confirm that. In FC (→GE) Fontana interpreted them as divided; separate slurs are also to be found in EE. In the main text we interpret them as combined, which is compliant with the structure of this fragment, consisting of a two-bar phrase presented twice in contrasting dynamics. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
|
b. 22
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
In A each of the two R.H. slurs encompasses – unlike in the L.H. – the repeat sign, marking the 2nd and 4th beats of the bar, respectively. Therefore, they are two half-bar slurs, which we give in the main text. In FC the slurs are clearly shorter, hence they are to be interpreted as encompassing only one group of demisemiquavers, which, after taking into account the repeat signs, results in 4 slurs in this bar. Both FE (→EE) and GE misinterpreted the slurs of the manuscripts as one slur over an entire bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||
|
b. 23-24
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
In A the slur over b. 23, which ends the line, was extended and reaches clearly beyond the stave, which, in turn, suggests a continuation. However, the slur in b. 24 rather does not confirm that, hence the slurs in FC (→GE) are divided. The slurs in FE reproduce the ambiguous notation of A – the slur in b. 23 suggests a continuation, yet in b. 24 a new slur begins. It is also that inaccuracy that was interpreted as separate slurs, which we see in EE. In the main text we suggest a continuous slur, considering the Chopinesque correction of the slur at the end of b. 23 to be decisive. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Corrections in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
|
b. 25-26
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor
..
In A the slurring, somewhat similar to the previous pair of bars, is unclear – the slur in b. 25, at the end of the line, suggests a continuation, which, however, is contradicted by the slur in b. 26, which begins only just over the 3rd demisemiquaver in the bar. Chopin corrected the slur in b. 26 by combining in the middle of the bar the initially written two slurs. Had he wanted to combine this slur with the previous one, he might have also corrected its beginning; consequently, we consider the fact of leaving the undoubtedly inaccurate beginning of the slur uncorrected to be an argument for divided slurs, which we give in the main text. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness |
