Issues : Uncertain slur continuation
|
b. 17-18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor
..
In A the slur in bar 17 (the last one on the page) suggests a continuation, which is, however, not confirmed by the slur in bar 18. FE (→GE,EE) includes separated slurs. Taking into account the fact that the slur in bar 18 in A is evidently inaccurately written, we assume that Chopin's intention in this place was most probably one slur until the end of bar 18. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 19
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
The phrase marks of A between the lines are ambiguous – the ending of the phrase mark in b. 19 suggests that it should be continued, which is not confirmed by the beginning of the phrase mark in b. 20. At the same time, both in b. 19 and b. 20 the interpretation is unobvious – in b. 19 the phrase mark does not go beyond the bar line as far as it does the line above or below, while the phrase mark in b. 20 begins after the 1st note, but its flat shape suggests that it is a continuation of the previous one. Similar situations can be found between the lines in b. 12-13 and 21-22. However, they fall within the phrases, and the endings of the phrase marks in b. 12 and 21 are so suggestive that there are no doubts that they should be continued. As in the discussed place a new phrase begins (cf. the phrase mark in b. 5), we suggest two interpretations of A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 20-21
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 22-24
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor
..
None of the sources conveys the correct version of slurring in these bars. In FE it is bars 23-24 that are ambiguous – the slur in bar 23, at the end of the page, does not point to continuation, while its shape could even suggest that it was shortened in print. This, in turn, is contrary to the slur in bar 24, which clearly suggests that the slur from the previous bar should be continued. The unquestionable slurs over analogous motifs in bars 31-32, 63-64 and 75-76 are also an argument for a continuous slur, hence this is the slur we give in the main text. In GE the missing slurs in bars 22-23 are probably an oversight, since in bar 24 (on a new page) the notation of FE was repeated, with a slur pointing to continuation from the previous bar. By contrast, in EEW it was the continuation of the slur on a new page that was omitted (overlooked? considered erroneous?). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||
|
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 |
