Slurs
|
b. 49-50
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 51
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 52-53
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
The slurs linking b1 with a1 in bars 52-53 and 60-61 have in A the form of a short slur reaching the quaver a1 (see the note for bars 4-13). In bars 52-53, the slur notation is additionally unclear in A as the slur is only present in bar 53 (new page). This must have confused the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE), who evidently misinterpreted Chopin's slur. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 53-54
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
One of the two slurs embracing the same motif in GE1 (→FE) is definitely redundant. The extra slur (the upper one) was removed both from GE2 (→GE3) and from EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 54-56
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
In A, the end of the slur was drawn inaccurately – category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
. Leading the slur to the grace note is inadmissible in this context. If one were to take into account the extent of the L.H. slur, one could conclude that the R.H. slur does not go beyond bar 55 either. Still, it seems more probable that what Chopin had in mind was a slur similar to that from bars 6-8. This is how his intention was understood in