Issues : Inaccuracies in FC
|
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
According to us, the long accent visible in FE corresponds to the notation of [A], hence we give it in the main text. We believe that the short accents of both FC (→GE) and EE resulted from an inaccurate reproduction of their respective bases. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 27-29
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
The clear difference in slurring between FE and FC (in the absence of visible traces of corrections in any of these sources) suggests that the [A] notation (perhaps vague) could have been misinterpreted. The suggested variants encompass 3 possible interpretations of the FC notation (including the GE version based on this copy), the FE (→EE) version and the version based on an assumption that the [A] slurs between bars 28-29 were misinterpreted in FE. According to us, each of these versions may correspond to the [A] notation. The continuous nature of the melodic line is an argument for the FE version, which we therefore suggest in the main text. The structural division determined by the harmonic course and the change in the melody motifs justifies the last of the given variants. The contextual interpretation of FC could also be considered musically justified – e category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FC , Tenuto slurs |
1 at the beginning of bar 28, naturally ending the previous phrase, could also be regarded as a beginning of a new thought, which, to a certain extent, is confirmed by the complementary pair of dynamic hairpins and the L.H. slur, linking this bar to the next phrase.