Issues : Inaccuracies in GE
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. 100-101
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The shorter slur of GE is an inaccuracy, probably related to the transfer of b in b. 101 to the top stave. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
b. 124-125
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the continuous slur of AF, reproduced in FE and EE with minor inaccuracies related to the transition to a new line, starting from b. 125 – in EE the slur in b. 124 was led to the g crotchet only, whereas in FE the continuation of the slur on a new line is placed under the stave. The separated slurs of GE may be authentic – it seems that Chopin was gradually completing the slurring of the L.H. part while writing [AG], and it is AF that presents the final result of this process (in GE2 the slur ending in b. 124 was reproduced inaccurately, as a result of which it seems that its ending falls on a). The slur that begins in b. 125, perhaps added at the stage of proofreading of GE1, was placed under the stave – probably to avoid layout complications in b. 128. Therefore, as an alternative solution we suggest a slur of the same range, yet led over the tenor voice, to which it refers. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of GE |