Slurs
|
b. 139
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The missing slur is probably an inaccuracy of notation – cf. bars 115, 123, 267 and 275. On the other hand, the long accent over the crotchet suggests that the slur is not necessary; it is also absent in strictly analogous bar 291. Due to this reason, in the main text we give the slur in brackets. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 141
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
Just like in a few similar places (bar 117, 269 and 293), we preserve the overlapping slurs in the main text. category imprint: Source & stylistic information |
||||||||
|
b. 163-164
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
Leading the L.H. slur until the beginning of bar 164 is much less justified than in the case of the R.H. slur due to the over two-octave f1-E category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||
|
b. 222
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
In GE, bar 222 opens a new great stave, resulting in an inaccurate slurring – a new slur begins on the 1st note, although the extended ending of the slur in the previous bar clearly points to its continuation. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 230
|
composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major
..
The engravers of GE and EE overlooked the ending of the slur in the L.H. while transitioning to a new great stave (bar 230 opens a new line). It belongs to the most frequent mistakes. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Uncertain slur continuation |
leap. Therefore, it is quite likely that it is the slur added in