Slurs
|
b. 66-68
|
composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major
..
The extended slurs of GE1 are a result of misunderstanding of the base text (GC). The absence of the first slur in EE1 (→EE2) is most probably an oversight of the copyist or engraver. The slurs in EE3 suggest the influence of the first GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||
|
b. 69-70
|
composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major
..
The ending of the slur in bar 70 cannot be considered as reliable in GC. As far as bars 68-69 are concerned, it is hard to state in which sources the slurring of [A] was interpreted correctly – in GC or in FE and EE. The arguments for a continuous slur are not only the number of sources, yet also the fact that possible corrections of the slurring could have had place only in the lost manuscripts, as they are not to be seen in GC. Due to these facts, in the main text we give the version of FE and EE, being conscious of the fact that the interpretation of slurs of GC adopted in GE3 (→#GE4) may also correspond to Chopin's intention. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||
|
b. 70-72
|
composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major
..
Lack of the slur in GC (→GE) is most probably a result of the copyist's oversight. It is also possible that Chopin added this slur in base texts to FE and EE and he omitted GC. Anyways, there are no reasons to assume that Chopin would have wanted to resign from it. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GC |
