Slurs
|
b. 425
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Chopin would sometimes use the notation with double slurs, e.g. in the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, 3rd mov., bars 472-480, yet in this case, the addition of the top slur must be a revision of EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 426
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 426
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
An earlier beginning of the slur in GE1 (→GE2) must be an inaccuracy of the engraver who could have misinterpreted the "encompassing" slur of FE. A slur compliant with both piano and musical logic was restored in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 426-427
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Both this passage and a similar one 4 bars later are encompassed with two slurs. In spite of this, in both cases one can find a justification for divisions of those slurs (each time different); according to us, the most likely explanation for this state of affairs is an inaccurate notation resulting from, e.g. the layout with an octave sign encompassing also the 2nd beat of the bar, which favours divisions of slurs, or from the transition to a new line in [A] (in bars 430-431). Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest a slur encompassing the entire sequence of semiquavers in each of those places. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 428-429
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The revision of GE3 does not seem to be justified, since visible traces of changes prove that the slur of FE was proofread, probably by Chopin, whereas both the original and the changed slur reached the 1st sixth in bar 429. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
