b. 134-135
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
In FC the slur in bar 134, the last in the line, suggests that it should be continued, which is not confirmed by the slur beginning in bar 135 from the 1st note. We assume that they are separated slurs, as in FE (→EE), whereas in GE they were interpreted as a continuous slur. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 136-137
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
In FC, the continuous slur written initially by the copyist, encompassing the last 5 bars, was divided into two slurs by Chopin between the 2nd and 3rd beats of this bar. We give this version, undoubtedly Chopinesque and present in the principal source, in the main text. On the other hand, the authenticity of the FE (→EE) version is uncertain, since one can easily imagine that the Chopinesque notation, either in [A] or in the proof copy of FE, could have been misinterpreted. Chopin could have, e.g. written the following, inaccurate slurs: , which in FE were interpreted in accordance with the tendency to adjust marks to regular rhythmic structures, e.g. bars, typical of engravers. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||
b. 136-139
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
Chopin entered slentando into FC (→GE). Similarly, Chopin added the smorz. - - indication present in FE (→EE) probably only just while proofreading this edition. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of FC |