|
Slur to D |
|
|
-dThe range and aim of writing in A phrase marks placed over and under empty b. 48-58 (those bars are only signalized and do not contain notes) are questionable. The elements of notation present in such abridged notation are generally supposed to be included in the text repeated from the model bars; when the model text contains their counterparts (as in this case), the newly written marks replace those that were valid before. In this case, such an interpretation, however, leads to ambiguous situations:
- When interpreted literally, the R.H. phrase mark ends in the 1st half of b. 58, i.e. within a phrase, which was not reproduced as such both in FC and FE.
- The L.H. phrase mark starting only just in b. 48 gives rise to a few questions – since Chopin wrote phrase marks in the parts of both hands in b. 44-60, are we supposed to assume that the phrase mark is to be omitted in the places in which he did not write them (b. 44-47, L.H.)? And if we were to consider the phrase mark from b. 28-31 in b. 44-47, are we supposed to start a new one in b. 48 or to continue the preceding one?
- The ending of the L.H. phrase mark may be adjusted to the 2nd minim in b. 58, which cuts it off before the last octave of this clearly four-bar phrase.
According to us, the above ambiguities may be explained as follows – nearing the fragment marked in an abridged manner, Chopin wanted to continue the R.H. phrase mark and prolonged the one that ended at the beginning of b. 43 until the end of the line (b. 47). As the R.H. part is encompassed with one continuous phrase mark throughout the entire section, he assumed that the bars signalized in the next line should also be encompassed with the phrase mark in order not to suggest that it should be broken and led the phrase mark to the last written-down bar (b. 58). Looking at the line of empty bars with a phrase mark over the R.H., he considered the absence of a L.H. phrase mark to be potentially misleading and copied the freshly inserted R.H. phrase mark, encompassing b. 48-58, under the L.H. Thus, the only accurately marked element of slurring of b. 44-58, not written out, would be the prolongation of the R.H. phrase mark, which originally reached b. 43. According to us, it justifies the suggested alternative versions of slurring, based on more carefully marked model b. 28-42 (see the notes on b. 47-48, 50-56 and 58-59).
In particular, in the discussed bars, in the L.H. part, except the phrase mark reaching the end of b. 58 drawn from A, we suggest – as the main text – the phrase mark reaching b. 59 present in FE (→EE). The shorter phrase mark of FC (→GE) is a repetition of the incomplete phrase mark of those sources in analogous b. 41-43.
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Inaccurate slurs in A, FE revisions
notation: Slurs
Back to note