mUltimate Chopin

Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 84-85

composition: Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major

A possible reading of the slurs of A (→GE→FE), slurs in EE3
 

The slur of EE1 (→EE2)
..

In A (→GE→FE), the slur at the end of bar 84 does not match the slur in bar 85 that opens a new system. The slur in bar 85 is drawn as a new one, not a continuation. This inaccurate notation may be interpreted in two ways:

  • the way Chopin notated the slurs in bars 76-77; that version can be found in EE3; 
  • the way in which the slur in bars 80-81 are notated; that version appears in our main text as the simplest one. 

In EE1 (→EE2) the slurring discrepancy was resolved by omitting the slur at the end of bar 84.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 90

composition: Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major

Slur ending in A (→GE→FE→EE)

The editors' proposition
..

In the sources, the slur ends above the 2n quaver of the bar. This probably results from the inaccurate notation of A.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 96

composition: Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major

A possible reading of the slur of A (→GE→FE→EE)

Contextual interpretation of the slur of  A
..

The extent of the slur is not quite clear in A. The interpretation adopted in GE (→FE→EE) may be considered possible, but in the editors' opinion a longer slur, reaching the crotchet on the 2nd beat, is far more probable. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 109-112

composition: Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major

A more probable reading of the slurs of A (→GE2→GE3)

A less probable reading of A (→GE1→FE→EE)
..

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. 109-112

composition: Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major

A single slur in GE (→FE)

Two slurs in A and EE
..

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