Slurs
|
b. 127
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The position of the curved line of Atut, reproduced in FE (→EE), is questionable – it seems that it combines both e notes in this bar. The absence of the curved line in GE1 (→GE2) is most probably a mistake, perhaps caused by ambiguity of the curved line of FE. The curved line added in GE3 could have been an attempt at interpreting that curved line, which is accurate, according to us, also with respect to the curved line of Atut. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 139-148
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slurs in the L.H. added in bars 139-140 and 147-148 in EE and GE3, although substantially justified, are unnecessary, since Chopin would generally consider the slurs over the R.H. to be enough in such contexts – cf. e.g. the slurs in the first part of the Etude in B minor, op. 25, no. 10. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 142-144
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The missing slur is most probably an oversight in this case, attributed to Chopin or the engraver of FE (→EE1,GE1→GE2), cf. an analogous phrase 4 bars later. The slur in bars 143-144 was completed in EE2 (→EE3), whereas in GE3 – over the entire semiquaver sequence. In the main text, we suggest the latter, provided that the authentic slur could have been led further, perhaps up to bar 146. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 145-146
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we give the interpretation of the curved line of FE (→GE1→GE2) adopted in EE and GE3. The Chopinesque manner of writing ties as short curved lines reaching the prolonging note would frequently result in their erroneous interpretation. However, other possibilities cannot be excluded – the curved line in the autograph could have been led over the top voice, since moving slurs to the side of note heads was a routine procedure, frequently applied by engravers. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 153
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The slur in FE (→EE) is most probably inaccurate, hence in the main text, we give the version of GE, which, according to us, guesses correctly Chopin's possible notation. Too spacious slurs, written with a flourish, are a frequent phenomenon in the Chopinesque autographs. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
