Slurs
|
b. 4
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor
..
The slur only reaching the semiquaver c2, musically and pianistically awkward, may be the result of a misreading of [A], perhaps inaccurate in this respect. That's why we propose a longer slur in the main text. The same in bar 44. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 6-8
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor
..
The missing slur in GE is most probably the engraver's oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 16
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor
..
The fact that the slur in FE (→GE) was led only to a category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
|
b. 19-22
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor
..
The absence of these slurs must be an oversight, probably by the engraver of GE, although there is a possibility that the slurs were forgotten earlier – by Chopin or the engraver of FE – but it could have been detected in the stage of proofreading FE1 (→EEW). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
|
b. 25
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor
..
The shorter slur in GE2 (→GE3) could have resulted from a misinterpretation of the GE1 slur – it could have been regarded as an inaccurate slur under the quaver group. Not only does the slur indicate legato articulation, but it also separates the entire 5-note tenor voice motif, whose range is unobvious in the simplified Chopinesque notation. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
1 seems a patent inaccuracy, hence to the main text we adopt the version of 
