Issues : Placement of markings
|
b. 62-65
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
The slurring in bars 62-63 may be considered as authentic both in FE1 and GE. The first of them were then recreated in FE2 and EE, yet with a change of layout – slurs in bars 63-65 are placed below the notes. According to the editors, it is highly unlikely that it follows Chopin's notation. On the basis of that, it may be supposed that also the slurs in GE, which are running under the notes, were placed over the notes in the autograph. In the main text we give the alleged notation of [A2]. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , GE revisions , FE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 63-64
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
Two slurs in FE (→EE) may be explained by an unfinished (or simplified) correction, in which the top slur was added – perhaps by Chopin – as an amendment of the bottom one, moved by the engraver to the side of the noteheads (cf. b. 79-80, in which the same slur written above the stave in A1 was reproduced under the notes). In the main text we give the unequivocal notation of A1 and GE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 65-66
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
The tie of c1 is probably a slur of A1, distorted due to a routine shift to the side of noteheads. It is indicated by b. 77-78, in which the slur of A1, written in the same manner, was reproduced in FE as a tie of c1. The right slur, yet also inaccurately reproduced, was probably added in the proofreading of FE (→EE), perhaps by Chopin. We consider the misleading tie of c1 having been left in the text to be an inaccuracy committed in the implementation of the proofreading. In the main text we give the unambiguous notation of A1 and GE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 66
|
composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor
..
According to us, the end of the slur in FE1 is printed inaccurately; the slur in bar 67, which is in the next line, suggests to continue the slur from the previous bar. However, both in FE2 and EE it was the scope of the slur in bar 66 that was assumed as the correct one. Moreover, in those editions the whole sign was moved under the notes, which is almost certainly contrary to the notation of [A1]. The slurs of GE present probably a slightly different version of this place in [A2]. The version of EE2 is a compilation of the notation of EE1 and GE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , FE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 67-68
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
Due to the transfer of the slur near the noteheads, the mark in FE (→EE) seems to be a tie of d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings |
2. In the main text we preserve the original Chopinesque notation from