Issues : Tenuto slurs

b. 17-19

composition: Op. 25 No 4, Etude in A minor

Slurs in A, probable reading

Slur in A, possible interpretation

Slurs in #CF

Slurs in FE

Slur in EE

Slurs in GE

..

The initially written here three slurs, one in each bar, were then extended by Chopin in both preserved manuscripts, who connected the slurs between bars 18-19 in A, whereas in FC – between bars 17-18. In A, the situation is additionally complicated by the new line of text beginning in bar 18, as a result of which – as it is often to be encountered in Chopin autographs – it is unknown whether the slur in this bar is supposed to continue the one from bar 17 or not. The two possible interpretations resulting from this situation are reflected in the versions of FE and EE, which, however, feature the most probably inaccurately written ending of the slur in bar 19. In turn, GE inaccurately reproduced the ending of the slur in bar 18. In the main text we give the slurs of FC, corrected by Chopin's hand and compatible with the phrasing corresponding to the formal structure. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , Authentic corrections of FC , Tenuto slurs

b. 18

composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major

Slur from grace notes in A, literal reading

Slur from grace notes in A, contextual interpretation

Slur to bar 19 in FC (→GE)

Slur from 2nd crotchet in FE (→EE)

..

In the main text we reproduce the beginning of the slur in accordance with the notation of A (→FCGE). In FE, like in the previous analogous bars, the beginning of the slur was placed only just over the trilled crotchet.

The ending of the slur, which clearly reaches the end of the bar in A, was interpreted in FC (→GE) differently, i.e. it led to the beginning of b. 19. According to us, that slur, when interpreted literally, resembles a tenuto-slur, which is, however, probably an inaccuracy of notation, which we do not include in the main text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , FE revisions , Tenuto slurs

b. 18

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur to minim in GE & FE (→EE)

Slur to end of bar suggested by the editors

..

The slur visible in the sources may be authentic; however, it is likely (which is evidenced by a comparison with the notation of FE (→EE) in b. 44 and 277) that it was adjusted to the notes placed on the top stave by the engravers (i.e. shortened). Consequently, in the main text we suggest the type of slur featured in the aforementioned bars, i.e. a slur/tenuto, typical of Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Tenuto slurs

b. 24

composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor

Slur to f2 in FC (→GE)

Slur to 2nd beat in FE (→EE)

..

In the main text we give a slur with a 'tenuto' ending, present in FE (→EE). The shorter slur of FC must be inaccurate here, which is proven by the longer slurs of the copy in all analogous situations (bars 32, 56 and 64).
See also bar 32.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC , Tenuto slurs

b. 27-29

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

3 slurs in FC, literal reading

2 slurs in FC, possible interpretation

Continuous slur in FE (→EE)

3 slurs in GE

2 slurs, our alternative suggestion

..

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 – e1 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.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC , Tenuto slurs