Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
|
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. 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 |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 21-22
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
According to us, there is no reason to interpret the beginning of the slur of A1 differently than in an analogous phrase four bars earlier. In spite of that, in FE (→EE) the beginning of the slur was placed already over the e1 minim. It implies that the same slur in GE may also be inaccurate, hence we consider both possibilities equal. However, in the main text we preserve the text of the principal source, since in [A2] Chopin, having changed the articulation of the initial motif of this phrase, could have led the next slur slightly differently too. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 27-29
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
According to us, the slur of A1 in b. 27-28, coinciding with the next one on the minim in b. 28, is one of a few inaccuracies of notation of slurs in the sources concerning this Mazurka. The suggested interpretation is based on the assumption that the slurs of A1 generally describe the same performance manner as the slur and the staccato dot used in [A2] (→GE1). In other words, Chopin was certain of the performance concept of that phrase, he was just looking for the best way to write it down. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 30-31
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
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). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain slur continuation |
1 in 
