Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 20-21
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 53-58
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major
..
Six one-bar slurs in these bars probably replaced the longer slurs present in AI – see the notes on bars 49-56 and 57-60. However, while proofreading FE2 Chopin restored here longer slurs, almost of the same range as in AI. It makes us doubt whether it was supposed to be an addition to the already printed slurs or whether the composer actually wanted to return to the initial concept, and the fact that the shorter slurs remained unchanged resulted from the engraver not having implemented the more labour-consuming part of proofreading (removing an element was much more troublesome than adding an element, considering the then used print method). As we are uncertain as to Chopin's intention, in the main text we give short slurs in brackets, leaving the decision of whether to include them or not to the performer. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Chopin's hesitations , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 69-70
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major
..
Chopin moved the beginning of the slur while writing [A] or while adding a slur in the proofreading of FE1, which could be indicated by its absence in GE (unless it is an oversight by the engraver of GE1). However, the end point of the slur poses a challenge. On the basis of an analysis covering all places based on similar rhythmic motifs (bars 1-16 and 79-86), both in AI and FE, in the main text we suggest a slur encompassing the c The R.H. slurring in bars 69, 71 and 73 differs in the sources. It is part of a greater issue involving the entire Mazurka, which we discuss in the note in bar 3. When adopting a holistic approach, in FE the slurring of the repeating theme rhythmic scheme (four quavers in uneven bars linked with a slur – or not – to the first quaver in even bars) turns out inconsistent and at times also inaccurate. However, longer slurs prevail, hence in this place we standardise and extend the slur to the beginning of bar 70. In GE it is the regular absence of R.H. slurs in bars 69, 71 and 73 that is surprising, as is the consistency with which this issue was not corrected in subsequent editions. One could assume a purposeful deletion, but this would be difficult to explain. It could have been a mistake, although it is also possible that the slurring of this fragment was incomplete in the proof copy of FE serving as the basis for GE. Admittedly, these slurs can already be seen in AI, yet the inconsistencies of FE described above are an argument for the hypothesis that Chopin hesitated, which resulted in changes (performed several times). The AI slur encompasses the entire 1st beat of bar 70; however, there is no rest. Nevertheless, one can assume that a slur in a version with a rest would be ending on the 1st quaver in the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 71-72
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major
..
In FE a mistake was committed by not continuing the slur in a new line, which was reproduced in EEC as a slur over 4 quavers. In the main text we correct this oversight by leading the slur to c category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Uncertain slur continuation |
in 
1-e
