|
b. 37
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
Just like in b. 12-13, we consider the slur starting from G category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
|
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
We add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
|
b. 40-41
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
According to us, the continuous slur of A1 may result from overlapping of two inaccurately written slurs – in b. 40, which ends the line, and in b. 41, which opens the next one. The fact that it is probably the slur in b. 40 that is inaccurate is proven by the R.H. slur, which also clearly suggests continuation, in spite of the fact that b. 41 opens with a rest. It would mean that Chopin had one slurring concept from the very beginning, i.e. separated slurs, which was conveyed by GE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
|||||
|
b. 41-42
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The omission of the slur of A1 in FE (→EE), which is based thereon, suggests that a similar situation could have taken place in the relationship between [A2] and GE. Such slurs over single notes of the upper voice can be found on several occasions in Chopin's oeuvre, e.g. in the Waltz in A category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Tenuto slurs |
in bar 36 in 
before f
before g1 was added in the proofreading of 
Major, Op. 64 No. 3,