Slurs
|
b. 4-5
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
In A there is a phrase mark over b. 1-4 and also another one, which, when interpreted literally, starts from the 2nd quaver in b. 5. Therefore, nothing indicates Chopin's intention to combine them, hence the interpretations of both FC and FE must be considered erroneous (besides, the copyist considered the division of the phrase mark in b. 7-8 and 8-9 to be accidental too). Moreover, we assume that the beginning of the phrase mark in b. 5 is inaccurate in A; according to our interpretation, it starts from the 1st quaver. It is justified by the fact that in a few other situations Chopin equated a phrase mark beginning between the 1st and 2nd quavers to a phrase mark running clearly from the 1st quaver, e.g. b. 1 and 9 or 29 and 31. See also the note to b. 54-55. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 7-9
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
The slur over b. 8 encompasses in A 5 top-voice quavers. However, according to us, it is possible that Chopin meant a whole-bar slur, as reproduced in FE (→EE). The slurring of FC is definitely incompatible with the notation of A, although the situation between b. 8-9 is ambiguous in the copy – the slur in b. 8 (at the end of the line) suggests that it should be continued, whereas the slur in b. 9 rather does not. However, as b. 9 is not written out with notes, which impedes a reliable evaluation of the placement of the beginning of the slur, we take into account the ending of the slur in b. 8. This is how it was interpreted in GE too. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||
|
b. 12-13
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
The versions of the editions are arbitrary attempts at interpreting the seemingly illogical slurring of A (→FC). Indeed, one could assume that the notation of A is inaccurate due to the crossings-out in b. 12, which forced Chopin to rewrite the R.H. part on the stave above. According to us, it could have provoked an unintentional shortening of the phrase mark, which would justify the version of GE. However, in the main text we keep the notation of A, which could have equally been intended by Chopin – the f1-b1 crotchet guarantees legato at the end of the bar, while the last quaver (c category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 21-22
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
The double slur of A (→FC) in b. 21 and the abridged notation of the R.H. part in b. 22 posed problems to the engravers, as far as the interpretation is concerned. In the case of b. 21, the top one is a tenuto slur, sometimes used by Chopin even for single notes, which was not a common practice in his time. FE considered it a slur for the entire R.H. part and omitted the bottom slur, whereas GE stretched it to the next bar, which resulted in an ambiguous curved line – a slur or a tie of b1. In b. 22 there is only a •/• mark on the stave, yet Chopin wrote the top slur above it, which, according to us, does not mean that he forwent the bottom one; however, the editions interpreted it so. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 25-26
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor
..
Unlike in analogous b. 21-22, Chopin wrote here in the R.H. part only one slur in each bar. The simplified notation could have represented economy of notation, typical of Chopin, or could have been aimed at reducing the number of cramped markings to help the engravers. Taking into account the latter, we suggest the more detailed marks from b. 21-22 as an alternative solution. GE distorted even the simplified slurring by replacing the slurs with one curved line, linking the minims in the top voice, which is, by the way, ambiguous, since it may be both a slur or a tie. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
2) belonging to the preceding phrase is not as obvious as it may seem.
