Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 595-596
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The overlapping slurs of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) may be interpreted literally; however, according to us, it is highly likely that Chopin wanted to have consecutive slurs like it was interpreted in GE3. See also the note to bars 597-599. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 596-599
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to determine to what extent the slurs of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) reproduce the notation of [A] – one can, e.g. imagine that the fact that the slurs coincide on the 1st octave in bar 598 could mean that Chopin wanted to merge them into one slur. What is more, it cannot be excluded that it was already the notation of [A] that contained certain inaccuracies, a vast number of which can be encountered in the preserved Chopinesque autographs, e.g. the missing slur in the ending of the phrase (bars 599-600) could have been related to the transition to a new line of text, which frequently resulted in overlooked endings of slurs. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest one slur over the entire phrase after the analogous place in exposition (bars 245-249). The solution given in GE3 reveals a routine approach, where it was whole-bar slurs that were considered most natural. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 597-598
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 600-603
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Those obvious inaccuracies in the three editons obscure deciphering Chopin's intentions regarding slurring of the part. In the main text we present the slurs notated without clear faults in GC. They represent possible articulationn of the chords progression. While interpreting the slur in # EE we assume that the error applies to b. 600 (half of the line spanning bars 598-600 has no slurs in EE). We retain the slurs in GE as despite the inaccurate copy of the basis (GC) they are formally correct. The FE slurs may be interpreted in a variety of ways, among others as distorted GC slurs or as the aforementioned. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 609
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Just like in a few other places (e.g. bar 250 and 577), one can ponder whether the long grace note is just a proof of the engraver's carelessness in this place. This is how it was assessed in GE; however, according to us, the situation in this bar is different (as well as in bar 607) – Chopin would frequently use grace notes in the form of small crotchets before longer values, e.g. minims (cf. e.g. the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 1st mov., bar 208, as well as the Impromptu in G category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
in 
marks in this and analogous pairs of bars (see 
Major, Op. 51, bar 104 or the Polonaise-Fantaisie, Op. 61, bar 209 and 212). Due to that reason, in the main text we leave the notation of