Slurs
|
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The missing ending of the slur from the previous bar is an inaccuracy of GE (→FE,EE) – see the note in b. 44. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
|
b. 45-46
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
While the L.H. slur does not go beyond the bar line in A, its shape and range clearly indicate that it is supposed to reach the G1-G octave in b. 46. However, all the editions reproduced it literally, hence reaching the last quaver, D. Our interpretation of the slur is confirmed by an analogous slur starting in the next bar, undoubtedly reaching the octave at the beginning of b. 47. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
|||||||||
|
b. 46
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
According to us, the ending of the slur of A is inaccurate – Chopin did not lead the slur to the last semiquaver to keep the manuscript readable. The slur must concern the R.H. bottom voice, filled with semiquaver triplets, and is supposed to encompass the entire bar, as it was unequivocally marked in b. 45. This is the interpretation we give in the main text. In GE1 and the remaining editions, except GE3, the slur starts from the 2nd triplet, which is an inaccuracy caused by the 1st triplet having been placed on the bottom stave. FE and EE considered the ending of the slur (in GE1 (→GE2) accurately reflecting the notation of A) carelessly engraved, hence it was shortened. The range of the slur of GE3 is correct on both ends, yet the slur also encompasses the R.H. top voice (like the slurs in the remaining editions), which was clearly omitted by Chopin in A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , FE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 47-48
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In all editions, bar 47 is the final one in the line; moreover, the slur that reaches b. 48 was overlooked in it – it is only the ending of that slur that was printed in b. 48 (in FE this fragment was overlooked too). The diligence with which three different editions – EE, FESB and GE3 – reproduced this clearly erroneous notation is truly puzzling. In our transcriptions, due to a different layout, we treat the versions of all editions as not including a slur. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in GE , Uncertain slur continuation , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
|||||||||
|
b. 48-49
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Shortening of the slur in FESB was probably the engraver's mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FESB |
