Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
|
b. 420-421
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In A bar 420 is the last one on the page, whereas the slur written with a flourish clearly indicates continuation in the next bar. However, there is no ending of this slur in bar 421, which could have reassured the engraver of GE1 of his whole-bar approach (moreover, the traces of corrections visible in bars 420 and 421 suggest that each of these bars was initially encompassed with one slur; the erroneous division of the slur at the beginning of bar 421 was then corrected – perhaps by Chopin – to the version compliant with A). In GE2, Chopin's intention contained in A was reproduced correctly. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1 |
||||||||
|
b. 433-437
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The range of the four subsequent slurs in the L.H. in A may be problematic at the time of interpreting them – the lines are written with a flourish and they overlap with the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||
|
b. 445-446
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
It is difficult to assume that Chopin actually wanted to end the slur before the 2nd beat in bar 466. The slur is probably unfinished, perhaps to avoid the crossing with the octave sign. The slur of GE (→FE), led further, was most probably corrected, probably by the very Chopin, which confirms our assumptions that the slur of A is inaccurate. In EE, each of these bars is encompassed with a separate slur, which can be explained by an inaccurate interpretation of FE or a revision, e.g. by analogy to bars 425-426. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of GE , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1 |
||||||||
|
b. 450-452
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Both the ending of the slur in bar 450 and the beginning of a new one in bar 452 fall on musically unjustified places. That gives rise to the suspicion that the notation could be inaccurate or even erroneous. A possible cause of that inaccuracy is indicated by the correlation between the slurs and the octave sign – the first slur ends where the octave sign begins in the sources, while the second slur begins just when the octave sign ends. A similar situation occurs in the autograph of the Etude in E category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 451-452
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The slur of A (→FC) reaches the line ending b. 451, yet it does not go beyond it, so it is uncertain whether it is supposed to encompass the e minim in the next bar or not. In the main text we adopt the former as closer to the notation of analogous b. 349-350, in which the respective minim is certainly encompassed with a slur. This is how the slur was interpreted in FE (→EE), whereas in GE1 the slur ends on the last g category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
1 in 
and 
hairpins. The first slur is particularly inaccurate; in this case, it is both the beginning and ending that are questionable. However, a comparison of all four slurs allows us to state that the slurs always run from the d
in 