Issues : Uncertain slur continuation
|
b. 38-39
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 21, Prelude in B♭ major
..
Bar 38 ends the line in A. Both the R.H. and L.H. slurs that begin in that bar clearly indicate that they should be continued. However, there is no trace of continuation of those slurs in b. 39; what is more, in the R.H. part the bar begins with a rest, which proves that the notation of A in b. 38 is inaccurate. Due to the above reason, in the main text we suggest an interpretation according to which the L.H. slur also encompasses only the 5 last quavers in that bar. Nevertheless, we can regard the interpretation of FC (→GE) and FE as equal. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||
|
b. 38-39
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
In A the ending of the phrase mark in b. 38, which closes the line, clearly indicates that it should be continued, which is not confirmed by b. 39, which is devoid of a phrase mark. We solve this slurring inconsistency (frequent in Chopin's works) in favour of the notation in b. 38 – we lead the phrase mark to the semibreve in b. 39, taking into account the four-bar structure of phrases. FE (→EE) adopted a different interpretation, perhaps easier to draw. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||
|
b. 40-41
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
From b. 41 on, A (→FC) is written down in an abridged manner – it contains empty, numbered bars, which are a repetition of b. 1-8. The phrase mark in b. 40 clearly suggests that it should be continued, which we interpret (in accordance with FE) as an earlier beginning of the first phrase mark of the repeated fragment. GE did not consider the phrase mark in b. 40 at all, while in EE it starts only just on the 3rd beat of the bar; besides, both versions cannot be authentic. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||
|
b. 43-44
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The separated slurs of GE are a missed interpretation of the incoherent notation of FC, in which the slur at the end of the line (bar 43) does not point to continuation, while the slur in bar 44 does. We consider a continuous slur (as in FE) to be the text of FC. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
|||||||||
|
b. 44-45
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The missing second slur in GE1a and both slurs in GE2 (→GE3→GE4) must be errors of the engravers. The mistake committed in GE2 is a side effect of re-engraving this bar, on the edge of the page, due to the wear and tear of printing materials (engraving plates). In A, the second slur is clearly led to the beginning of b. 45; however, in FE (→GE1,EE), the ending of that slur does not reach that far. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Uncertain slur continuation |
