|
b. 109-112
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major
..
Bar 111 opens a new line in A. This, as is often the case in Chopin's autographs, brings about some ambiguity related to the extent of slurs. The slur in bar 110 clearly suggests continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur from bar 111. The conclusive slurring in bars 105-108 makes us consider a single slur to be much more probable than the two slurs printed in GE1 (→FE→EE). The interpretation concordant with our conclusion was adopted in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||
|
b. 109
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
We add a cautionary flat before a flat1. The same addition was made in EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 109-112
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
In the main text, we give the dynamic indications of A and GE2 (→GE3). In GE1, dashes defining the scope of the cresc. were omitted. In FE (→EE), the entire indication is missing. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||
|
b. 109
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
We add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||
|
b. 109-112
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major
..
Taken literally, A has got two slurs in the L.H. embracing bars 109-110 and 111-112. In spite of that, in GE (→FE) the entire four-bar section is embraced by a single slur This seems to be a fortunate inaccuracy, as there are no grounds for applying different slurring than the one used in analogous bars 105-108 (and only in the L.H. probably - see the note concerning the R.H.). EE has got two slurs, which may have been influenced by the R.H. slurring. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
before g flat1 in the L.H.
