![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
b. 131-132
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Just like in b. 39-42, in the main text we give the slur of AF, which emphasises the a category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||
b. 133-138
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Two or three slurs that originate from the previous bar are continued differently due to the different placement of the slurs concerning the inner voices as well as due to the change of the function of one of the slurs of AF – the slur that began in b. 131 as an alto voice slur and led between this voice and the higher placed soprano voice minims (in our transcription placed under the alto voice) already concerns the entire R.H. part from the 2nd quaver in b. 133. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||||
b. 143-144
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The slur in AF ends between the semiquaver and the crotchet. The ending of the slur is poorly visible against the middle line of the stave; it is likely that Chopin ran out of ink and could not drag the slur to the crotchet that ends the motif. Due to the above reason, in the main text we suggest a musically more natural interpretation of this notation (cf. b. 147). We consider the absence of the slur in GE to be Chopin's inadvertence or the engraver's mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||||||||||
b. 159
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AF both the ending of the slur from the previous bars and the beginning of the new one are written inaccurately, hence it is unclear which notes they are supposed to concern. The ending of the former is similarly inaccurate in GE, which suggests that it was also [AG] that was not precise in this respect. We reproduce the text of both sources the way it was performed in FE (→EE), which seems to be closest to this notation. However, we are convinced that Chopin meant the slur to be divided after the 1st beat of the bar, as in AI or the way both AF and GE have it in analogous b. 167. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||||||||||
b. 172
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AF the slur breaks here; however, it is uncertain whether it was supposed to indicate a division of the slur – one can see it as an inaccurately written combination of the slurs, which is how it was interpreted in FE (→EE). In the main text we give the continuous slur of GE, which almost certainly corresponds to the notation of [AG]. See also the note in the next bar. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »