data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
In the sources the slur in bar 95 encompasses only this bar, while in bar 95/119 reaches G in the next bar. Interpreting the range of Chopinesque slurs may be quite troublesome, hence such a difference most probably means that in the manuscript the slur ended ambiguously, and the publisher – consciously or not – reproduced it twofold in the copy of [A] prepared as the basis. Both versions can be considered equivalent, and to the main text we choose the longer slur as being more natural at the end of a phrase.
A similar problem concerns the hairpin in these bars.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
notation: Slurs