Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
|
b. 39-40
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slur of Atut, originally encompassing only 4 quavers (like in the following bars), was probably prolonged. According to us, it is, however, uncertain whether the short, zig-zag line was added on purpose – a trace after an unintended touch of the quill could have looked like that. It is also possible that Chopin wanted to prolong this slur, yet he hesitated at the time of writing it and eventually renounced longer slurs – none of the following slurs over similar motifs was prolonged. We are convinced that all motifs in bars 39-44 should be performed in a similar manner; therefore, in the main text, we suggest a non-prolonged slur. Such a solution was adopted also in GE3, probably on the basis of comparison with the following bars. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In Atut, the fact of beginning the slur from the 2nd semiquaver, although it was then repeated in bar 47, seems to be an inaccuracy of notation. Such a notation would suggest that the 1st semiquaver of the tremolando should be separated, as far as the articulation is concerned, which is inconvenient from the pianistic point of view. Due to this reason, in the main text we give the interpretation adopted in FE (→GE,EE). In turn, the literal interpretation of Atut has its perks if we consider the slur to be a phrase mark – it graphically underlines the motif of the top voice, b2-a category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||
|
b. 46-47
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The interpretation of the slurs of Atut by the engraver of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) may be considered justified, since the notation of the manuscript is most probably inaccurate. In the main text, we give a different interpretation of Atut, based on the assumption that the similarly looking beginnings of the slurs in bars 45 and 47 convey the same message – slurs from the beginning of the semiquaver tremolando (however, cf. the note in bar 45). This solution was adopted in GE3. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 77-78
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The issue of sustaining the B minim is unclear. Bar 77 is the last one on a page in Atut and it is devoid of a tie. However, on a new page, in bar 78, there is an ending of such a tie. Since Chopin did not write a respective tie in an analogous situation in bars 81-82, we assume, in accordance with FE (→GE), that the ending of the tie was written in bar 78 by mistake. In this situation, the tie in EE added most probably by Fontana, modelled after the solo part (bars 238-239 and 242-243), is to be considered a variant of uncertain authenticity. See also bars 81-82. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
|
b. 96-98
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In Atut, the slur in bar 96, ending the line, is led far beyond the bar line; therefore, one can assume that, in spite of its missing ending in the next line, Chopin planned a much longer slur, most probably of a similar range to the one featured four bars before. We adopt such an interpretation in the main text. In FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), the slur was led only to the beginning of bar 97, whereas in GE3, it was shortened even more, so that it encompassed only the semiquavers in bar 96 (cf. the note to bar 93). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
2. 
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »