Slurs
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The slur in EE may be considered as a result of misunderstanding of the manuscript (perhaps inaccurate), if it were not for the extension of the slur written – most probably by Chopin – in FES. Therefore, it seems that a relevant indication of the overlapping phrases bothered Chopin both at the stage of preparing the Etude for print and many years later during the lessons. The versions of FE and GE1 and GE2 (→GE3) are most probably only conventional interpretations of the handwritten notation which can be seen in GC. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||
|
b. 7
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The slurring of EE is the original state, corrected by Chopin at the stage of manuscripts only in GC. The accurate sense of this correction is not clear (GE1 interpreted the slurs literally as non-connected), yet Chopin proofreading of FE dissipates the doubts concerning the composer's intention. Cf. analogous bars 50-51. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections in GC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 9-10
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
Both the absence of the slur in GC (→GE1) and the one-bar slur of FE have to be considered as an inaccuracy of notation. In turn, the slur of EE is most probably authentic and we adopt it as the base of the main text. However, we shift its beginning in such a way that it included also the grace note, as it can be seen in analogous situations in GC (bars 1 and 45) and FE (bar 45). It cannot be excluded that the copyist confused the staves and wrote the slur of the L.H., running from the beginning of the bar, over the R.H. A two-bar slur was added also in GE2 (→GE3), together with a conventional slur of the grace note. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors of GC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 27-28
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The moment of ending the slur in GC is not entirely clear – it can be interpreted as including only bar 27, as it was done in GE1, or as reaching E category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
The range of slurs in GC is not clear here, what is more, in spite of the fact that the slur which begins in this bar is not linked with the previous one, its shape suggests that it was the writer's intention to link them. Due to this fact, in the main text we adopt the unambiguous, continuous slur of FE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
1 in bar 28, as it is in 
