Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 2-6

composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major

Slurs in A, contextual interpretation

Different interpretation of slurs in A

No slurs in FE (→GE,EE)

..

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. 31-32

composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major

Slurs in A, literal reading

Possible interpretation of slurs in A & slurs in FE (→GE,EE)

Slur in A, contextual interpretation

..

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

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 34-36

composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major

Slur in bar 34 without continuation in A (→FEGE1), literal reading

No slurs in bars 35-36 in EE3 & GE2 (→GE3GE4)

No slur in bar 35 in EE4

Suggested contextual interpretation of A

Suggested contextual interpretation of FE (→GE1)

..

The end of the slur of A (→FEGE1) in bar 34 (the last in the text's line) suggests continuation in the next bar, yet in bar 35 the slur was omitted in A (→FEGE,EE). In subsequent GE,s the slur in bar 34 was shortened. According to us, lack of slurs in bars 35-36 is a result of Chopin's inattention at the time of writing A (he also omitted accents there), hence we suggest to complete the slurs. Due to the ambiguity concerning the range and possible divisions of the slurs, we give two suggestions.
In EE4 a slur was added in bar 36, which was certainly performed by the reviser. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of A

b. 37

composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major

Slur in A

Slurs in FE (→GE,EE)

..

The first R.H. slur in A is probably drawn imprecisely. The distinctly different slurs in FE (→GE,EE) are most likely the result of Chopin's correction.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 47-48

composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major

Slurs in A, contextual interpretation

Slur in FE (→GE,EE)

Slurs suggested by the editors

..

The double slur, as written in A, was more than once used by Chopin. However, in the main text we give a single slur found in FE (→GE,EE), possibly introduced by Chopin while proofreading FE, as in bars 49-50. In bar 48 A has two unclear slurs, probably the result of some corrections with a not fully controled result.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A