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=""
The ending of the slur over b. 30-31 is uncertain in A1: at the end of the line, in b. 30, the slur suggests continuation, yet there is no ending thereof in b. 31. A comparison with the slur in b. 26-27, extended by Chopin, proves that it is the missing ending of the slur in b. 31 that is a mistake. Such interpreted slurs are featured in FE2, which may be a result of Chopin's proofreading, since FE1 considered the slur in b. 30 to be inaccurate and shortened it correspondingly. In the main text we give the unquestionable four-bar slur of GE1, reflecting [A2] (in GE2 it was reproduced inaccurately: in b. 30, which ends the page, the slur reaches the minim only; see also b. 65-66).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccurate slurs in A, Authentic corrections of FE, Uncertain slur continuation
notation: Slurs