|
6 shorter, 2 longer slurs in A |
|
4 shorter, 4 longer slurs in FC |
|
3 shorter, 5 longer slurs in FE |
|
4 shorter, 4 longer slurs in FC |
|
5 shorter, 3 longer slurs in EE |
|
|
8 longer slurs, our alternative suggestion |
Just like in the previous sections using the motivic material of the C
minor theme (b. 310-333, 412-435 and 492-515 and 544-551), it is also in b. 552-579 that the groups of five quavers are encompassed with slurs of different length in the sources, i.e. not going beyond the bar line (5-note slurs) or reaching the beginning of the next bar (6-note slurs). The homogeneity of the motifs prompts us to attempt to unify the notation; however, a clear textural difference between b. 552-559 and the next ones – presence of chords at the end of the figures of the first group – suggests that Chopin could have wanted to diversify the slurring of both groups. That suggestion is largely confirmed by the notation of A:
- in the first group there are 5 shorter slurs and 2 longer ones (b. 554-555), while one is questionable (b. 556-557, R.H.);
- in the second group there are 8 longer slurs and 4 shorter ones (b. 562-563 R.H., 568-569 both and 570-571 R.H.), while 3 are questionable (b. 566-567 R.H., 570-571 L.H. and 574-575).
It should be added that in a few places one can reasonably justify an interpretation different from a literal one, e.g. the shorter R.H. slur in b. 562 could have resulted from fear of a potential collision with the accent at the beginning of b. 563, whereas the questionable R.H. slur in b. 566-567 was being written with almost no ink left (there are visible gaps caused by its shortage), hence it could also have been the case in the ending.
There are no indications that Chopin could have interfered with the range of the discussed slurs in later sources: FC and FE reproduce A with minor, most probably accidental inaccuracies, out of which the most pronounced ones are the extension of the slurs in b. 558-559 (in both sources) and oversight of the slur in b. 574-575 in FE. The deviations of EE from FE should also be deemed inaccuracies (except for the addition of the overlooked slur) as well as the deviations of GE1 from FC. In GE2 (→GE3) the slurs were consistently unified, just like in the entire middle section of the Scherzo.
Eventually, we base the main text on the above analysis of the notation of A, giving 5-note slurs in b. 552-558 and 6-note ones in b. 560-579. In the first group we alternatively suggest 6-note slurs.
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccuracies in FE, Inaccurate slurs in A, GE revisions, EE inaccuracies, Inaccuracies in FC, Uncertain slur continuation
notation: Slurs
Back to note