Slurs
|
b. 1-2
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The line, added with panache in FES, may be interpreted as a slur underlining the legato articulation or phrasing. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
|||||
|
b. 5
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The slur added in EE3 (→EE4) is probably an arbitrary addition of the reviser of EE, who took into consideration the authentic slur in analogous bars 53-54. Situations, in which analogous places differ in performance indications, are very common in Chopin's pieces. It does not always mean that Chopin wanted to underline the diversity of their performance (e.g., in this case non legato in bars 5-6 and legato in bars 53-54). The lack of a slur may be considered here as a suggestion of a smoother, more homogenous phrasing of the entire eight-bar section. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 30-31
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In EE2 the octaves in the L.H. in these bars are linked with ties. It is probably a mistake – the ties were supposed to be put one line above as ties sustaining the G1-G octave in bars 27-28. The assumption is confirmed by a joint review of both places in EE3 (→EE4): the ties in bars 30-31 were removed and added in bars 27-28. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
|||||
|
b. 35-37
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
In FED the added not entirely clear signs may be interpreted as slurs, e.g., reminding of the legato articulation or underlining the dynamic change and beginning of the new phrase in bar 37. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information |
|||||
|
b. 53-54
|
composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major
..
The authenticity of the slur of FE (→GE1→GE2,EE) is undeniable. Lack of the sign in later GE,s is most probably a result of an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
