Slurs
b. 117
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The fact that the slurs coincide in this place could have meant that Chopin wanted to combine them – cf. bars 276-277. However, in the main text we leave the source notation, since it is practically equivalent, whereas overlapping slurs in similar places appear also in bars 141, 269 and 293, which significantly reduces the likelihood that they were misinterpreted. category imprint: Source & stylistic information |
|||||
b. 118
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In GE, there is no ending of the slur in the L.H. on a new line. It is a mistake of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
|||||
b. 122
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
A slurring that separates the grace note from the subsequent quaver is unnatural and points to a possibly inaccurate interpretation of the notation of [A]. However, it is unclear which slurs Chopin meant:
In the main text, we adopt the latter, taking into account the slur in analogous bar 274. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
b. 123-124
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In the main text, we suggest moving the beginning of the slur to over the e1-b1 fifth. In the remaining five similar places, the slur always starts in this fragment of the phrase (the beginning of the four-bar section), which strongly supports the possibility that the slur of the sources in the discussed bar is inaccurate. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||
b. 125
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The fact that the slur of FE does not reach the c1-a1 sixth was considered an inaccuracy already in GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |