Slurs
|
b. 19-23
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The slurs in A, despite being added in fragments, were undoubtedly meant to create one continuous slur, running from the beginning of bar 16 to the middle of bar 23. However, in FE (→GE,EE), the slurs between bars 19 and 20 are clearly separated. Moreover, nothing indicates that the omitted in FE (→GE1) continuation of the slur in bar 21, certainly by inattention, was to be connected with the slur beginning in bar 22 (in EE and subsequent GE,s the slur in bar 20 ends on the last note). It is hard to attribute this discrepancy only to the engraver's distraction, on the other hand, it is uncertain what a possible Chopin's proofreading of slurs considered, whether the composer actually wanted to resign from one slur and divide it into two-bar phrases. In this situation, in the main text we give the certainly authentic slurring of A, subject to the fact that Chopin's latest decision could have been the divided slurs of the editions. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The slur in the L.H. was added – probably by Chopin – in a proofreading of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2). The slur clearly indicates continuation in the next bar (on a new page), in which, however, there is no relevant mark. In EE, in which bars 28-29 are not separated, the slur was led to the beginning of bar 29. In turn, in GE3 (→GE4) the slur's range was limited to three semiquavers. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The slur at the end of bar 28, added – at the end of the page – by Chopin in a proofreading of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), is unfinished in bar 29. According to us, the inaccuracy concerns this bar and this is how we interpret the notation of FE (→GE1→GE2). In EE bars 28-29 are not separated and the slur reaches the D-A fifth. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
|
b. 30-34
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
Omission of the slurs in the L.H. in bars 30 and 34 must be considered as Chopin's inaccuracy, as in bars 32 and 36 the slurs are present in A. Therefore, we suggest to complete the slurring on the basis of comparison with similar motifs in bars 2, 6 and analog. The additions – on a similar basis, yet with different results – were performed both in GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 31-32
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The slurs of A, interpreted literally, are certainly inaccurate. They can be interpreted as separated, as in bars 29-30, or as continuous, as in bars 33-34 (the 2nd slur, started too late, is certainly inaccurate, in turn, the 1st one suggests lack of division on the bar line). In FE (→GE,EE) it was the 1st interpretation that was adopted, which is graphically closer to the real notation of A. It is highly unlikely that Chopin proofread these slurs. In the main text we give preference to the 2nd interpretation, supported with the arguments following from the analysis of the slurring of bars 1-8 and analog. in the entire Etude. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources |
