Issues : Uncertain slur continuation
|
b. 29-32
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The majority of the source versions are a result of inaccuracies and mistakes. Out of the written-down versions of the slurring, hence except for AI, it is only two slurs that seem to be authentic:
The issue concerning the differences in slurring in the next bars – see b. 33-37. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 32-33
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
AI is lacking in the beginning of the R.H. slur at the end of b. 32, which closes the line. The slur that begins in b. 33 is ambiguous – it may suggest continuation, yet we assume that it starts only just in this bar. A similar situation can be found in GE, in which the slur also begins along with a new line in b. 33. In both cases, an inaccuracy of notation may be suspected, hence in the main text we give the slur of AF (→FE→EE), confirmed by the concordant version of all the sources in analog. b. 124-125. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
According to us, the slurs coinciding with each other is a more likely interpretation of the notation of AI and AF than the continuous slur of the editions, since in b. 45 a new phrase begins. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 68-69
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AI the ending of the slur in b. 68 (at the end of the line) suggests continuation; however, a flat slur begins in the new line from the 1st note of b. 69, in which one can see either a continuation of the preceding one or a new slur. The beginning of the slur in b. 69 in AF is also unclear – a flat line gradually emerges over the b1 minim, hence one can assume that Chopin started writing it earlier. The slurs of FE were probably corrected from a continuous slur, and, although the final notation is imprecise, the division of the slur between the bars is unquestionable. The same slurs are included in GE1, and this is the version we give in the main text. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
crotchet in b. 32 after the ending of the slur of 
