Slurs
|
b. 2-3
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
When interpreted literally, the slur of A1 does not reach the beginning of b. 3. A comparison with analogous bars in A1 points to an inaccuracy of Chopin's notation in this place (as well as in b. 6-7). It is also confirmed by the slurring of GE. It seems that the division of the slur of A1 into two parts was caused by temporary ink stoppage in the pen's tip. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 3-5
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The comparison of all analogous places (b. 3-5, 27-29 and 59-61) as well as of the similar motifs in b. 7, 11 and analog. leads to the following conclusions:
We provide the main text with the version of FE2, which can also be considered a contextual interpretation of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The slurs of Afrag and GE are unequivocal; since such a slur is featured in all analogous bars in GE, we give it – as present in [A2] – in the main text. The slur of FE is clearly erroneous, which was corrected in FE2 and EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with b. 1-2. The slur of A1 is problematic; just like the remaining slurs in the 1st line of the manuscript, it reaches the end of the bar, yet its shape suggests that it is supposed to be led to the beginning of the next bar. It is explicitly confirmed by the fact of ending the slur in b. 11 (on a new line) as well as by the unequivocal slur in b. 25-27, corrected by Chopin. In such a context, we interpret the slur of A1 as reaching the 1st quaver in b. 7. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 7-9
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
To the main text we adopt the version of GE, consistently present also in analogous b. 31-33 and 63-65, which shows that the notation of [A2] was almost certainly like that. We can also see the continuation of the slur over the rest in b. 7 written by Chopin's hand in Afrag, while the fact that the slur was led to b. 9 is confirmed by the slur of A1 in b. 32-33 and possible Chopinesque proofreading of FE1 in b. 8-9 and FE2 in b. 64-65. The version of EE and FE2 is erroneous. See also b. 5-6. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||||||||
|
b. 11
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In A1 the slur started in b. 9 undoubtedly reaches the 1st quaver in b. 11, in spite of a minor inaccuracy of notation – in b. 10 (at the end of the line) the slur does not go beyond the bar line, yet its ending is written in b. 11. The separated slurs of both preserved manuscripts may be considered here an equal variant, just like in b. 7 and further repetitions of that phrase. In the main text we give the continuous slur of [A2] (→GE). category imprint: Differences between sources |
