|
6 longer, 6 shorter slurs in A |
|
|
2 longer, 9 shorter slurs in FC |
|
|
10 longer slurs in FE |
|
|
3 longer, 9 shorter slurs in GE1 |
|
|
9 longer slurs in EE |
|
|
||
|
12 longer slurs suggested by the editors |
It is just a quick glance on the slurs Chopin wrote in A over the six-note motifs in the R.H. bottom voice that reveals two basic types of slurs: the ones encompassing 5 quavers only or the ones reaching the final minim. Both types make musical and pianistic sense:
- the characteristic quaver figure constitutes a whole in terms of articulation and is audibly clearly separated, which justifies 5-note slurs;
- in a broader context, the top voice melody is juxtaposed with the ostinato responses of the bottom voice, made of quavers and a minim, which, in turn, is an argument for 6-note slurs.
However, it seems to be highly unlikely that Chopin wanted to provide some of the figures with shorter and some with longer slurs. It is indicated by the recurrence of motifs and a rather hasty, non-calligraphic notation, excluding a purposeful differentiation between the slurs. Therefore, in the main text we opt for unifying the notation, choosing the one that is more frequent. In the discussed fragment the situation appears 12 times, while the statistics of appearances of particular types of slurs speaks for longer slurs – there are 6 of them, whereas 4 are shorter and 2 unclear (we reproduce them in the text of A as shorter). An analysis of analogous b. 412-434 yields even clearer results – 7 longer slurs, with 2 shorter ones and 3 unclear. It is worth adding that three of the unclear situations are at the end of a line – the slur suggesting continuation has no ending in the next line. Although formally these are shorter slurs, a contextual interpretation points rather to longer ones. The layout is also an argument for longer slurs – the fact of the slur not having been dragged to the minim could have been a result of lacking space, hampering the slur being freely led to the minim.
The copyist reproduced Chopin's notation inaccurately – in FC it is the shorter slurs that immensely prevail (8 versus 2, with one questionable), whereas in b. 332-333 the slur was totally omitted. A similar image is conveyed also by GE1 – 9 shorter, 3 longer (the missing one was added).
In FE, except for the overlooked slurs in b. 314-315 & 328-329, all the remaining ones are to be considered longer. According to us, it may be a result of misunderstanding of Chopinesque ties, written as very short curved lines before the second of the tied notes. Out of 6 places in which the bottom hand motif accompanies a tied note in the top voice, FE reproduced both curved lines only once (b. 322-323), in the remaining ones we have either a tie in the top voice or a motivic slur in the bottom one. It suggests that the engraver treated them jointly – he considered either a tie to be the ending of a motivic slur or a motivic slur to be the main part of the tie (another misinterpreted tie – see b. 294-295).
EE repeated the longer slurs of FE, yet their position was clarified. Interestingly, although both ties overlooked in FE were added in the top voice (b. 310-311 & 324-325), the two overlooked motivic slurs were not added (b. 314-315 & 328-329), and once a motivic slur was replaced by a tie (in b. 318-319).
GE2 (→GE3) unified the slurs after the statistical rule, which, in the face of predominance of shorter slurs in FC and GE1 resulted in 12 5-note slurs.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccuracies in FE, Inaccurate slurs in A, GE revisions, Errors of FC, Inaccuracies in FC
notation: Slurs