



b. 95-96
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Just like in b. 3-4, in the main text we give the version with tied c category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
||||||||
b. 95
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
We add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
b. 97
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
A comparison with the unequivocal, concordant slurring of all sources in analogous b. 5 makes us consider the overlapping slurs of AF (→FE→EE) to be an inaccuracy. In AI the slur in b. 96 – at the end of the line – suggests continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in b. 97. We interpret it as overlapping slurs (like in AF). In the main text we give the divided slurs of GE1, which, at the same time, are a contextual interpretation of the slurs of AF. The slurs of GE2 must be a mistake of the engraver. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 98
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
We reproduce the mark in AF, longer than in b. 94, as a category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions |
||||||||
b. 99
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions |