Slurs
|
b. 2-6
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
We suggest to complete the slurs after Chopin's marks in analogous bars 16 and 20. In bar 6 the slur was already added in GE and EE4. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 2-6
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
The range and possible divisions of slurs in A are unclear. We suggest two possible interpretations. Perhaps it was the uncertainty concerning this issue that was the reason for the omission of the slurs in bars 3-5 in FE (→GE,EE). 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 |
||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
In this context, lack of the slur over the semiquavers in the R.H. must be considered as Chopin's inaccuracy, which is justified by the revision introduced in EE4. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 10-12
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
According to us, the 2nd slur in bar 10 and the slur in bars 11-12 were omitted in FE (→GE,EE) due to the engraver's inattention. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 17-18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major
..
In A (→FE) the slurs between these bars are connected. In FE, due to the graphic layout, in which bar 18 falls in a new line, the issue may raise certain doubts, a proof of which are GE and EE, which give separated slurs. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies |
