Slurs
|
b. 283-286
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In such a quasi-parallel figuration, the slurs in the R.H. generally apply also to the L.H., particularly when both parts are written, partially or completely, on one stave. Therefore, the source notation without separate slurs for the L.H. may be considered to be complete. However, at the repetition of this fragment (bars 299-302), Chopin provided with slurs also the L.H., which, according to us, indicates rather the need to specify the notation than to differentiate between the markings of both four-bar fragments. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest adding slurs of the L.H. Slurs were introduced already in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 285
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing slur in FE (→GE1→GE2) must be an oversight of the engraver (or of Chopin in [A]) – cf. all 7 similar bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 287
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, the slurring of the sources, in which the legato articulation is marked in this and the next bar either explicitly, with a slur, or implicitly, with an additional quaver beam, does not have to be considered to be erroneous. However, it can be likely that the longer and complete slurs of analogous bars 303-304 express not a different but a later concept of Chopin. Due to this reason, in the discussed bar, we suggest an addition, whereas in bar 288, a modification of the slur, including this probably later slurring. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 288
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we suggest a slur modelled after analogous bar 304. The change was introduced already in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 289
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The oversight of the slur in GE3 is most probably an accident. It is difficult to accept an intentional deletion of a whole-bar slur (after the next bar, in which the slur was overlooked in GE1) if in analogous bars 305-306 such whole-bar slurs were introduced contrary to the notation of GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
