Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


Slurs

b. 319-320

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

No slurs in sources

Slurs suggested by the editors

..

In the main text, we suggest adding slurs over the characteristic, two-part figure in the R.H., following the interpretation of the slur in bar 321.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 321

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Slur from 1st quaver in FE (→EE,GE1GE2)

No slur in GE3

Slur from 2nd quaver suggested by the editors

..

The slur of FE (→EE,GE1GE2) must be inaccurate, perhaps as a result of an erroneous interpretation of [A] – Chopin, while writing a slur over the accents of the top voice, obvious to him, could have not noticed that the 1st quaver of the bar, placed much lower, turned up under the slur. In GE3, the slur was omitted, perhaps taking into account its inadequacy to the natural phrasing resulting from the texture. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 321-322

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Slurs in FE (→GE1GE2), literal reading

Slurs in FE (→GE1GE2), contextual interpretation & in EE

Slur in GE3 (possible interpretation of FE)

..

The slurs of FE (→GE1GE2) at the transition between bars 321 and 322 are inaccurate and unclear. The slur over the 3rd beat of bar 321 runs from the bcrotchet to the last semiquaver of that bar, whereas the beginning of the slur in bar 322, opening a new line of text, suggests continuation from the previous bar. According to us, both slurs are inaccurate; in the main text, we clarify them, taking advantage of the similarity between bars 321 and 319-320 – we assign the slur in bar 321 to the bottom voice and start the slur in bar 322 from the beginning of that bar. This solution was adopted already in EE. In turn, GE3 considered only the slur in bar 321 to be inaccurate; it was changed in such a way, so that the beginning of the slur in bar 322 was meaningful. This version, offering quite an advantageous phrasing (cf. the slur in the L.H. in bars 321-322), may be considered an alternative interpretation of FE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 337

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

No slur in FE (→GE)

Slur in EE

..

The slur in EE was most probably added by analogy with the authentic slurs in bars 45 and 47.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 357-358

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Slurs in FE

Slurs in GE1 (→GE2) & EE

Slurs in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors

..

The slurs of FE are clearly inaccurate and incomplete. Both the beginning of a new slur from the a1-aoctave and the absence of a slur in the 1st half of bar 358 are contrary to the structure of motifs, emphasised by the beaming and instrumentation. Slurs over the ending of the motif in bar 358 were added already in GE and EE, yet the division of the slur in bar 357 was moved only in GE3. In the main text we correct the range of slurs in accordance with the motifs' shape. See also bars 359-360

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions