Issues : Uncertain slur continuation
|
b. 5-10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor
..
In EE the L.H. slur in b. 5 – the first in a new line – begins from the 1st quaver, although the slur in the previous bar suggests continuation. The inaccuracy was most probably a side effect of the slur in b. 5-7 having been moved under the notes (though otherwise justified, since the notation of FE is illogical here: the slur in b. 1-4 is led under the notes, whereas its continuation in b. 5-7 – above). Inconsistent slurs between lines are also present in FC and GE – slurs in the bars opening a new line (b. 6 and 10 in FC and 5 and 9 in GE) run from the 1st quaver of the bar, contrary to the notation at the end of the preceding lines. (We do not reproduce the inaccuracies of FC in our transcriptions due to a different division into great staves.) category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
In A, the slur begun in bar 6 (the last in the line of text) has no continuation, which makes it impossible to figure out Chopin's exact intention for slurring of that phrase. The solution adopted in GE (→FE→EE) seems the most appropriate one (cf. analogous bars 54-55). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
In A the end of the L.H. slur in b. 6, which closes the line, clearly points to continuation, which is, however, absent in b. 7. In this case, it did not result in discrepancies in the remaining sources, since both FE (→EE) and FC (→GE) led the slur to the beginning of b. 7, undoubtedly in accordance with Chopin's intention. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 7-9
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
To the main text we adopt the version of GE, consistently present also in analogous b. 31-33 and 63-65, which shows that the notation of [A2] was almost certainly like that. We can also see the continuation of the slur over the rest in b. 7 written by Chopin's hand in Afrag, while the fact that the slur was led to b. 9 is confirmed by the slur of A1 in b. 32-33 and possible Chopinesque proofreading of FE1 in b. 8-9 and FE2 in b. 64-65. The version of EE and FE2 is erroneous. See also b. 5-6. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 7-9
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
The slur over b. 8 encompasses in A 5 top-voice quavers. However, according to us, it is possible that Chopin meant a whole-bar slur, as reproduced in FE (→EE). The slurring of FC is definitely incompatible with the notation of A, although the situation between b. 8-9 is ambiguous in the copy – the slur in b. 8 (at the end of the line) suggests that it should be continued, whereas the slur in b. 9 rather does not. However, as b. 9 is not written out with notes, which impedes a reliable evaluation of the placement of the beginning of the slur, we take into account the ending of the slur in b. 8. This is how it was interpreted in GE too. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
