Slurs
|
b. 19-20
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
On the basis of a comparison with analogous bars 45-46, it can be concluded that the shorter slur in FE (→EE) is probably the copyist's or engraver's mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 25
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The slur over two chords occurs only in FE (→EE). Chopin probably added it while proofreading FE1 or perhaps it was entered already into the basis for FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The missing slur in FE is almost certainly an oversight of the copyist or of the engraver, repeated in EE. In the main text we follow GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 30
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The version of GE could have resulted from a double interpretation of the mark resembling a vertical curved line (with which Chopin most probably marked the arpeggio in [A]). Engravers would often work in stages, i.e. an entire page of noteheads, then beams, slurs, ornaments, etc., hence it is likely that the slur was engraved at the stage of slurs, while the arpeggio at the stage of ornaments. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Arpeggio – vertical slur |
||||||||||
|
b. 30-33
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
To the main text we adopt the version of the principal source, i.e. FE, since it was the latest one controlled by Chopin. It is compliant with the slurring of analogous b. 56-59 and 289-292 present in all sources. The version of GE, probably also authentic, can be considered a variant. category imprint: Differences between sources |
