Issues : Tenuto slurs
|
b. 2-3
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
When interpreted literally, the slur of A1 does not reach the beginning of b. 3. A comparison with analogous bars in A1 points to an inaccuracy of Chopin's notation in this place (as well as in b. 6-7). It is also confirmed by the slurring of GE. It seems that the division of the slur of A1 into two parts was caused by temporary ink stoppage in the pen's tip. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 2-10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The slurs in b. 2 and 6 (as well as in b. 18) explicitly encompass already the grace notes introducing the trills. In this situation, we consider the slur in b. 10 to be inaccurate; in the main text we suggest a slur analogous to the remaining ones. The notation of FC is vague – three out of four slurs run rather from the 2nd grace note (only in b. 6 from the first one). As such a notation is musically unjustified, we assume that the copyist meant slurs starting from the 1st grace note in all places, which is how it was interpreted in GE. As far as the end point of the slurs is concerned, according to us, the notation of A in b. 6 and 10 points rather to boldly written slurs (which were obvious to Chopin) than tenuto-slurs led to the end of the bar (see, however, b. 18). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Inaccuracies in FC , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 17, Prelude in A♭ major
..
The range of the slur in b. 4 is unclear in A – it can be interpreted as a slur dragged to the a category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The slurs of Afrag and GE are unequivocal; since such a slur is featured in all analogous bars in GE, we give it – as present in [A2] – in the main text. The slur of FE is clearly erroneous, which was corrected in FE2 and EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with b. 1-2. The slur of A1 is problematic; just like the remaining slurs in the 1st line of the manuscript, it reaches the end of the bar, yet its shape suggests that it is supposed to be led to the beginning of the next bar. It is explicitly confirmed by the fact of ending the slur in b. 11 (on a new line) as well as by the unequivocal slur in b. 25-27, corrected by Chopin. In such a context, we interpret the slur of A1 as reaching the 1st quaver in b. 7. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
1 in 
