|
b. 64-65
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The division of the slur in AI could have resulted from the uncertainty about the combination of b. 64-65 and about the final shape of the melody in b. 65-68 – in the initial version of the L.H. part, there was no transitional F category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||
|
b. 65-67
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In b. 65 and 67, there are two variant versions of the R.H. motifs in AI. Eventually, Chopin used the idea that was written first. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Chopin's hesitations , Corrections of AI |
|||||
|
b. 65
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The missing slur in GE seems to be an oversight of the engraver – in this edition L.H. slurs appear from b. 66, opening a new line, yet both slurs in b. 64-65 were overlooked. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 66
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AI one can see the deleted initial form of the accompaniment – c category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Accompaniment changes , Corrections of AI |
|||||
|
b. 66-75
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In these bars, AI does not contain a single L.H. motivic/articulation slur, which results from the working nature of this autograph – cf. b. 64-65. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Embracing slurs |
note, while in the alternative version of the melody, b. 65 opens with a repeated e2. Therefore, the combination of b. 64-65 in the rejected versions is not as smooth as in the final one.
