Slurs
|
b. 2-10
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The slurs in b. 2 and 6 (as well as in b. 18) explicitly encompass already the grace notes introducing the trills. In this situation, we consider the slur in b. 10 to be inaccurate; in the main text we suggest a slur analogous to the remaining ones. The notation of FC is vague – three out of four slurs run rather from the 2nd grace note (only in b. 6 from the first one). As such a notation is musically unjustified, we assume that the copyist meant slurs starting from the 1st grace note in all places, which is how it was interpreted in GE. As far as the end point of the slurs is concerned, according to us, the notation of A in b. 6 and 10 points rather to boldly written slurs (which were obvious to Chopin) than tenuto-slurs led to the end of the bar (see, however, b. 18). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Inaccuracies in FC , Tenuto slurs |
||||||
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The crossings-out and additions visible in A reveal that Chopin initially provided each of the half-bar figures – in the right and left hands – with a separate slur. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A |
||||||
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
In FC the line ends in b. 4, and the slurs, both at the end of b. 4 and at the beginning of b. 5, indicate that the slur should be continued. In A the slurs between the lines also suggest a continuous slur; however, in the case of A the line ends earlier, already in the middle of b. 4. This was most probably the reason for the copyist's confusion: he did not pay attention to the difference in the layout while writing the slurs. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||
|
b. 6-9
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
The slurring of FC (→GE) proves the copyist's distraction, perhaps due to haste. The change between b. 6 and 7 could be explained by an inaccurate interpretation of the ending of the slur added in A (Chopin must have meant leading the slur to the last semiquaver in the bar and not combining it with the next one). The broken slur between b. 7 and 8 probably is an inaccurate interpretation of A (the fragment of the slur at the beginning of b. 8 is poorly visible in A) or a mistake (b. 8 ends the line in FC, just as b. 7, which begins similarly, ends the line in A). The slur at the end of b. 8, which ends the line, implying that it should be continued may have simply been carelessly written down. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||
|
b. 7-8
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major
..
In spite of the unequivocal notation of A, the L.H. slurs were reproduced erroneously both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE). Fontana omitted both slurs of A; however, he provided the triplets in b. 8 with conventional slurs (he also did it in b. 12). In turn, it is difficult to say what could have prompted the engraver of FE to combine the slurs, which is contrary to the notation of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
