Issues : Uncertain slur continuation
|
b. 29-32
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The majority of the source versions are a result of inaccuracies and mistakes. Out of the written-down versions of the slurring, hence except for AI, it is only two slurs that seem to be authentic:
The issue concerning the differences in slurring in the next bars – see b. 33-37. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 30
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
The slurring of A is inaccurate here – the slur from previous bars ends on the crotchet in the middle of the bar, even though the next one that starts on the new page (in bar 31) suggests a continuation from the previous page. Both the copyist and the engravers interpreted this by merging both slurs in one. According to us, Chopin must have had in mind the same phrasing as in analogous bars 6 and 14, which means that he did not end the long slur from the previous bars too early but forgot to write the beginning of the slur at the end of bar 30. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 30-31
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The ending of the slur over b. 30-31 is uncertain in A1: at the end of the line, in b. 30, the slur suggests continuation, yet there is no ending thereof in b. 31. A comparison with the slur in b. 26-27, extended by Chopin, proves that it is the missing ending of the slur in b. 31 that is a mistake. Such interpreted slurs are featured in FE2, which may be a result of Chopin's proofreading, since FE1 considered the slur in b. 30 to be inaccurate and shortened it correspondingly. In the main text we give the unquestionable four-bar slur of GE1, reflecting [A2] (in GE2 it was reproduced inaccurately: in b. 30, which ends the page, the slur reaches the minim only; see also b. 65-66). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 31-32
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
In A b. 31 falls at the end of the page, while the L.H. phrase mark (the R.H. too) clearly suggests that it should be continued. However, on a new page, in b. 32, the phrase mark starts only just on the 1st crotchet. We assume that it is the latter that is inaccurate, since a potential division of the phrase marks would be rather symbolic here – the division falls on a tied note. In addition, this is how it was interpreted both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 32-33
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
AI is lacking in the beginning of the R.H. slur at the end of b. 32, which closes the line. The slur that begins in b. 33 is ambiguous – it may suggest continuation, yet we assume that it starts only just in this bar. A similar situation can be found in GE, in which the slur also begins along with a new line in b. 33. In both cases, an inaccuracy of notation may be suspected, hence in the main text we give the slur of AF (→FE→EE), confirmed by the concordant version of all the sources in analog. b. 124-125. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Uncertain slur continuation |
crotchet in b. 32 after the ending of the slur of 
