Slurs
|
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
It is unclear how to treat the short, two-quaver-long slurs visible in the sources. They do not raise any doubts in A, in which they are compatible with the accents over each sixth. However, after removal of the majority of accents in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE), the slurs seem not to correspond to the new accentuation. The fact of leaving them could have been a compromise, whose aim was to avoid an additional, significant complication of a proofreading. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that Chopin removed the accents in order not to change their layout, but to avoid exaggeration resulting from double indications. Therefore, having no absolute certainty of Chopin's intention, we suggest a version without slurs as a recommended alternative to the main text from A (→FE). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 8-9
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
The slur of FE (→GE,EE) is obviously erroneous – the engraver led the slur to the end of the line, as it is in A. At the same time, he did not pay attention to the difference in the text's division into great staves: in A the line ends with bar 8, while in FE – with bar 9. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 57-58
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
The slurs in the L.H. added in EE4 are certainly non-authentic. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 75-76
|
composition: Op. 10 No 10, Etude in A♭ major
..
According to us, both slurs written in A are too short. Their absence in the editions is probably a result of an oversight of the engraver of FE (it cannot be excluded that he omitted them, not being certain of their range). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
