The eight-bar section encompassing bars 169-176 (beginning with an upbeat in bar 168) poses a number of problems concerning the slurring: the slurs in the R.H. at the transition between bars 169 and 170 and analog., the range of the slur at the transition between bars 170 and 171, and the presence and range of the slurs in the part of the L.H. We shall begin from the easiest issue: everything indicates that, in spite of the parallel move of both hands, Chopin wanted to mark articulation and phrasing in A both in the R.H., where he did it in a comprehensible and actually faultless manner, and the L.H., in which slurs are written in bars 168-169 and 172-173:
- the places in which A does not have slurs in the L.H., although we would expect them on the basis of comparison with the part of the R.H., constitute two compact areas – bars 170-171 and 174-176 – which suggests two moments of distraction experienced by the composer. It is unquestionable in the second case – bars 174-176 open a new page in A, and the L.H. is devoid of any markings: there are no slurs, dots or even threes over the triplets.
- all signs written in A in the L.H. – 5 slurs and 4 dots in bars 168-173 – perfectly match the markings of the R.H. It proves that Chopin's intention was almost certainly to have the same markings for both hands in the entire discussed phrase.
- the slurs in the L.H. in bars 169-170, 171, 171-172, 173-174 and 175-176 were added in the proofreading of GE1 probably by Chopin, which is indicated by their musical sense – they are more accurate than both the incomplete slurs of A and the inaccurate slurs in the R.H. present in GE1. This is another confirmation of Chopin's intention of having equally complete slurs in both hands.
In the last two above statements, the issue of the range of the slurs was initially signalised, which we are going to discuss in detail, starting from three motifs at the transition between bars 169 and 170 and analog.:
- in the part of the R.H. each of these motifs is provided with two slurs in A. Among the slurs written in the part of the L.H. there are also either short slurs from d1 to f1 or a triplet slur. In other words, Chopin did not write any longer slur in both hands in these places. Therefore, in the main text we give such overlapping slurs in all places.
- we consider the slurs of GE2 to be also an acceptable interpretation, since they generally do not differ significantly from the slurs of A, and in the case of the slurs in the R.H. in bars 169-170 and 173-174, they can even be regarded as their justified interpretation. In the L.H. similar slurs are also in GE1 (→FE), probably added by Chopin. In bars 169-170 and 171-172 they are actually one note longer, but it can be a result of an inaccurate reproduction of Chopin entries in the proof copy.
We interpret the ambiguous, as far as the moment of its beginning, slur of A at the transition between bars 170 and 171 (in the R.H.) as beginning from the c3 minim on the basis of a comparison with analogous bars 173 and 175 (the 3rd crotchet in bar 168, introducing the theme and not marked with staccato, is of a clearly different nature). At the same time, this interpretation constitutes an important argument for the authenticity of the slurs added in GE1 in the L.H. – the slur in bar 171 starts from the minim, although the R.H. has a longer slur.
The slur in the L.H. in bar 172 present in GE1 (→FE→EE) is certainly erroneous and, according to us, it was supposed to apply to the first two notes in bar 173.
In EE, at the transition between bars 169 and 170 and analog., the slurs of both hands were unified on the basis of the slurs of FE in bars 172 and 174 – in all 6 places the slur embraced only the quaver triplet, which, in the light of the above observations, certainly does not correspond to Chopin's intention.
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in GE, GE revisions
notation: Slurs
Back to note