Issues : Legato & slurs
|
b. 1-5
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The slur is present in the orchestral part sources, MFrorch and FEorch. Therefore, it may have been omitted by accident. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that legatiss. in FE (→GE,EE) was aimed at mitigating the absence of that slur – there is no place to add a slur in FE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Legato & slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
According to us, the placement of the legatissimo indication, if it reproduces the notation of the autograph accurately, is of a conventional nature – there is no reason for that indication not to concern also the first half of the bar. Due to that reason, we place it slightly earlier in the main text. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Centrally placed marks , Legato & slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 40
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, FE (→EE) positioning legatiss. under the 2nd quaver is either a result of an inaccurate reproduction of [A] or an example of an indication written within the scope of its validity. There are no doubts that legatissimo is to be applied from the beginning of the bar, together with the slur. In GE, the indication was moved to the beginning of the bar. The simultaneous presence of a slur and legatiss. probably indicates the use of 'harmonic legato' (holding elements of a chord with fingers); in this case, it would most probably consist in holding the bottom dyads longer. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Legato & slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 54
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), there are no slurs in the L.H., differently than in analogous bar 13. In GE3, a slur over the 1st half of the bar was added; it is difficult to say what the motivation of the reviser was for adding only one slur in this bar. In the main text, we preserve the notation of FE, since Chopin most probably considered the legato indication to be enough – cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bar 139, in which the sempre legato indication replaced the slurs present in an analogous place. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that legato was added as an easier way of correcting the accidentally overlooked slurs – in the entire theme (bars 54-62), Chopin provides the accompaniment with slurs already from the next bar (except for bar 58). Due to this reason, we suggest adding slurs in the discussed bar as an alternative solution. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Legato & slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 139
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Chopin added sempre legato in the proofreading of FE, probably considering the accompaniment in this and two subsequent bars, devoid of slurs, requiring more precise articulation – in an analogous place in the recapitulation the L.H. is provided with slurs. In EE, in which the slurs were added here, sempre legato was omitted, which can be regarded as a rational solution, compliant with economy of indications, generally characteristic for the Chopin notation. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Legato & slurs |
