|
Slurs in A, contextual interpretation |
|
|
|
|
The slurring of the first theme of the Etude – bars 1-8 and analog. – poses serious editorial problems. The sources, on whose shape Chopin had an undeniable influence – A and FE – clearly differ. There are also significant differences between analogous bars in particular sources. The evaluation is additionally hampered by clear inaccuracies of notation – essentially unjustified omissions of slurs (in A bars 8, 35-36 and 61-62, in FE bars 3-5, 8, 21, 35-36, 61 and 68), ambiguous notation, e.g., at the transition to a new line (in A bars 3-4, 7-8 and 66-67, in FE bars 5-6) or in another situations (in A bars 31-32).
The comparison of the slurs of both sources in all discussed places – bars 1-8, 15-22, 29-36 and 61-68 – allows for the following observations:
- The first bar of each of these 8-bar sections is provided with a separate slur (except for bar 61, in which the slur is erroneously omitted). A and FE are fully compatible here.
- In the remaining bars the slurs in A are either two bar long, embracing the passages going from bottom to top and back (e.g., bars 64-65) or continuous, combined of such two-bar-long slurs connected in the places where the figuration turns in the small octave (in bars 5-6, 17-22 and 33-34).
- In FE only in bars 17-18 one can see the connection of slurs visible in A. In all other situations, in which the slurs are complete and unambiguous, they are the above described two-bar-long slurs (in bars 30-33 and 62-67).
- There are no clear traces of corrections of FE in terms of slurs, except for adding a slur beginning in bar 62. A possible slur's correction can be indicated by the trace of moving the word Loco in bar 19.
According to us, on the basis of these observations, the following conclusions can be drawn:
- Most often, in the sources there are two slurring schemes of the discussed 8-bar sections, written as sequences of numbers determining the length (in bars) of subsequent slurs – 1-7 and 1-2-2-2-1.
- In A it is the long slurs embracing the bars from the 2nd to the 8th of the discussed 8-bar sections that have statistical advantage. It is clear in the first three 8-bar sections, in which out of 9 situations (transitions between bars 3-4, 5-6, 7-8 and analog.), five show the slurs to be clearly connected, three are unclear (bars 3-4, 7-8 and 31-32), one displays no slurs at all (bars 35-36). However, for the 4th time (bars 61-68), the slurs are clearly divided into 2-bar sections.
- The total of the slurring of FE may be considered as not incompatible with the scheme of two-bar-long slurs in all discussed places, while in half of the places such division does not raise any doubts.
- The authenticity of the slurs of FE has not been confirmed, yet it is plausible.
- In A the visible connections of the slurs are the most distinctive source indication of Chopin's well-thought decision. Lack of connections in the last 8-bar section may be explained with the composer's drop in attention, who mindlessly wrote the original slurring, or with a change of decision, which later found its reflection in the slurring of FE.
Having clear traces of the slurs' connections in A on the one hand and a possibility of changing the decision in A and proofreading of FE on the other, in the first three 8-bar sections we give the choice between two slurring schemes. Generally, we give preference to the slurs of A, which we adopt to the main text. In bars 61-68, we give the compatible slurring of A (→FE).
In this kind of rhythmically homogeneous, virtuoso figuration, possible breaks in slurs on the main beats of the bar do not influence the performance.
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Errors in FE, Inaccurate slurs in A
notation: Slurs
Back to note