Slurs
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
The slur of A clearly has a phrasing function and relates to whole chords, also the progression of the upper voice g1-a1. Relocating it to the side of the note heads, which was one of routine operations performed by engravers, completely changed the sense of that marking. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Placement of markings , Errors in GE |
||||||
|
b. 3-4
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
In EE, the upper slur in those bars was omitted, probably by mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
||||||
|
b. 4-13
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
In A, the slurs linking b1 with a1 in bars 4-5 and 12-13 have the form of a short slur reaching the quaver a1:
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||
|
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
In A, the slur begun in bar 6 (the last in the line of text) has no continuation, which makes it impossible to figure out Chopin's exact intention for slurring of that phrase. The solution adopted in GE (→FE→EE) seems the most appropriate one (cf. analogous bars 54-55). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness |
||||||
|
b. 11
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
The lack of a slur in authentic sources may, in our opinion, be considered an inaccuracy of notation of this Mazurka – hence our proposition to supplement it. The reviewers GE2 (→GE3) apparently had the same motivation, but instead of repeating Chopin's slur as in A (e.g. in bar 3), they gave its distorted version from GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
. One's attention is drawn to the shape of those slurs, typical for Chopin's ties.
