Slurs
|
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text we put longer slurs after GE, which was based on [A]. It is also compliant with the slurring in subsequent bars. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 1-4
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In GE2 L.H. slurs were added in b. 1-4; we consider them superfluous – in such parallel sequences, particularly those written on one stave, Chopin would be satisfied with single slurs, which should be regarded as referring to both hands. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 4-8
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text we suggest a phrase mark after the authentic one in analogous bars 263-267. The places were certainly not supposed to be performed differently. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 14-16
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Without access to the manuscripts, it is difficult to say what Chopin's concept concerning the phrase marks in these bars was. A comparison of the sources leads to the conclusion that the differences probably result from the inaccurately written phrase marks in the manuscripts, hence in the main text we suggest a solution combining the most certain, according to us, elements of both versions, corresponding to a natural phrasing. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The slur visible in the sources may be authentic; however, it is likely (which is evidenced by a comparison with the notation of FE (→EE) in b. 44 and 277) that it was adjusted to the notes placed on the top stave by the engravers (i.e. shortened). Consequently, in the main text we suggest the type of slur featured in the aforementioned bars, i.e. a slur/tenuto, typical of Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Tenuto slurs |
