Issues : Uncertain slur continuation
|
b. 36-37
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
In FC the slur at the end of bar 36 (which ends the line) may suggest that it should be continued, which, however, is not confirmed by the slur in bar 37. We consider the unequivocal beginning of the slur in bar 37 to be reliable. Due to this ambiguity, and also due to the earlier decision concerning the slurring in bars 32-33, in the main text we continue the FE slur. In analogous bars 44-45 all sources feature a continuous slur. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 37-39
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The slur in bar 37 in FE reaches the end of line, suggesting a continuation, however, there is no slur in bar 38. It is certainly a mistake because the slur in [A] looked most probably as the one carefully written in GC. Possibly authentic is also the longer slur in EE – Chopin could have written it while proofreading the basis to this edition. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Uncertain slur continuation , Authentic corrections of EE |
||||||||
|
b. 38-39
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
Bar 38 ends the line in A. Both the R.H. and L.H. slurs that begin in that bar clearly indicate that they should be continued. However, there is no trace of continuation of those slurs in b. 39; what is more, in the R.H. part the bar begins with a rest, which proves that the notation of A in b. 38 is inaccurate. Due to the above reason, in the main text we suggest an interpretation according to which the L.H. slur also encompasses only the 5 last quavers in that bar. Nevertheless, we can regard the interpretation of FC (→GE) and FE as equal. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
|
b. 38-39
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
In A the ending of the phrase mark in b. 38, which closes the line, clearly indicates that it should be continued, which is not confirmed by b. 39, which is devoid of a phrase mark. We solve this slurring inconsistency (frequent in Chopin's works) in favour of the notation in b. 38 – we lead the phrase mark to the semibreve in b. 39, taking into account the four-bar structure of phrases. FE (→EE) adopted a different interpretation, perhaps easier to draw. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
|
b. 40-41
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
From b. 41 on, A (→FC) is written down in an abridged manner – it contains empty, numbered bars, which are a repetition of b. 1-8. The phrase mark in b. 40 clearly suggests that it should be continued, which we interpret (in accordance with FE) as an earlier beginning of the first phrase mark of the repeated fragment. GE did not consider the phrase mark in b. 40 at all, while in EE it starts only just on the 3rd beat of the bar; besides, both versions cannot be authentic. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
