Slurs
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor
..
In the initial, one-part writing of the quaver group preserved in GE – see the adjacent note – in GE2 (→GE3) it was also the beginning of the slur that was elevated in order for it to encompass the top note of the 1st quaver, b, too. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 26-27
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The fact that the slur is not continued on a new page in EEW must be the engraver's oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||
b. 28-29
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The slur not having been continued in FE after the transition to a new line is almost certainly an oversight – cf. an analogous situation in bars 20-21. This is how it was interpreted in EEW, in which the slur was led to g2 in bar 29. By contrast, GE approached the version of FE literally and clearly ended the slur on the last note in bar 28. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||
b. 38-39
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor
..
There are several possible interpretations of the inaccurately drawn slur of FE, encompassing the first two L.H. top voice crotchets. Two of them can be seen in GE and EEW; we give a third one as an alternative suggestion. We assume that the most likely interpretation of this slur is the version adopted by GE, that is with a slur encompassing entire bar 39. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »