|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few factors – embracing slurs in A, written with great flourish, and the transition to a new page in A and a new line in GE1 – contributed to the emergence of the following ambiguities and mistakes in the notation of slurs and ties:
-
in A it is unknown whether the slur over the part of the L.H. in bar 115 ends in this bar or whether it is to be continued in the next one. The right-hand ending of the slur reaches far beyond the last note (but the left-hand one too!); however, it is clearly shorter than the tie of e
1 and pointed downwards, which suggest an ending of the slur. No continuation in bar 116 (see below) seems to confirm it, yet it can be considered an oversight, one of many of this kind. -
in bar 116, both in A and in GE1, only one curved line is continued, namely the tie of e1. In spite of this, in FE (→EE) the ending was considered a continuation of the phrase mark from bar 115 and since in GE1 both slurs in bar 115 clearly suggest a continuation, the slur running from e1 was finished, by giving it the form of a motivic slur of e1-c1.
- the slur of A in bar 116, interpreted literally, embraces the first three crotchets in the bar. This is how it was reproduced in GE1 (→FE→EE), which resulted in a coincidence of the slurs on the 1st crotchet in the bar, already quite distant from the notation of A. In GE2 the coinciding slurs were replaced with one slur.
The easiest issue to resolve is the tie of e1 – the shape of the line reaching the note in bar 116 clearly indicates a tie both in A and GE. The version of FE (→EE) is certainly mistaken in this detail (see the adjacent note).
As far as the motivic slurs are concerned, the described inaccuracies mean that each of the four presented versions could be actually considered an interpretation of the notation of A. The choice of the main text, being at the same time the most plausible, according to us, interpretation of Chopin's intentions, is based on the following grounds:
- in bars 105-120 (except for 113-114), Chopin fluently develops semiquaver figurations in the R.H. with accompaniment of more clearly articulated, shorter motifs in the L.H., built from greater rhythmic values, usually crotchets. It is corresponded by varied slurring – except bar 120, the slurs in the R.H. in A embrace one or two bars, whereas the sections in the L.H. embraced with slurs are always shorter and they do not exceed four crotchets. Both the slur of GE2 and the coinciding slurs of GE1 (→FE→EE), which practically mean the same thing, do not respect the described regularity.
-
the bars are based on two cadenzas, four-crotchet long, first in A major and then in E major. It seems natural that the slurring harmonises with the harmonic course, hence the division of the slur should fall after the 1st crotchet in bar 116.
- when interpreted literally, the slur running from the 1st crotchet in bar 116 is in the entire fragment from bar 105 to 120 the only one that includes transfer of the hand. In other words, the slur is contrary to the rule of pianistically natural slurring, respected also by Chopin.
In the light of the above observations, we consider the slur starting in bar 116 in A to having been written inaccurately or even erroneously; in the main text we lead it from the 2nd crotchet in the bar.
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccurate slurs in A, GE revisions, FE revisions
notation: Slurs
Back to note