Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
|
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The ending of the slur in bar 29 in A is unclear – the slur at the end of the great stave suggests continuation, yet in the new great stave the slur in bar 30 clearly starts from the beginning of the bar. According to us, the interpretation adopted in FE (→GE,EE; in EE2 the slur was overlooked) is correct. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
|||||||||
|
b. 38-40
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In spite of the fact that the layout of the figurations in particular bars is similar and the phrasing of the parts of both hands naturally stems from the texture, the slurs in A are inconsistent in these bars. According to us, it is a result of inaccurate notation, therefore, in the main text we suggest to homogenise the notation after the undeniable slurs of the R.H. in bars 39-40. The shorter slurs of the editions are a different attempt of a homogenised interpretation of the slurring of A, performed probably by the engraver of FE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
|||||||||
|
b. 41-57
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
A single, short slur in bar 41 must be considered in A as an inaccuracy of notation – there is no continuation of the slur from the previous bar; there is also no reason to single out particularly this pair of semiquavers. According to us, it is a result of an unfinished change of slurring – at the beginning Chopin wrote in A four slurs 2 semiquavers each, starting from the second one in bar 41 and then, at the time of writing the octave sign, three out of these slurs were included in the line determining the range of the octave sign. However, he did not finish the correction, leaving the first slur unchanged and not entering the target slurring. Taking into account the structure of figurations and a few examples of extending the slurs in this Etude (e.g. in bars 2, 3, 21), we assume that Chopin most probably wanted to lead the slur from bar 40 until the beginning of bar 42. The arbitrarily added slurs of EE also draw attention, similar to the original slurs of A. Cf. the slur in the L.H. In AI there are no slurs in bar 41. However, we do not consider lack of this and many other performance indications on this page as an equal version of a given fragment, as the autograph is of a clearly working nature. In particular, when AI is not mentioned in the content of the note, it means that the discussed indication does not appear in it. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 69
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
It is not entirely clear whether the longer slur of A was really meant to reach until the beginning of bar 70 (the left end of the slur is also written with panache). Taking into account the notation of analogous bar 16, which does not raise any doubts, in the main text we give the slur in the version of FE (→GE,EE); overlooked in EE2). Less careful notation in bars 62-72 – see e.g. bars 65-66, 67, 70. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
