Slurs
|
b. 66
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we omit the additional slur over the quaver triplet – cf. General Editorial Principles, p. 16. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Triplet slurs |
||||||||||
|
b. 76-77
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing slurs in FE seem to be an inadvertence (of Chopin or of the engraver), hence in the main text we suggest adding slurs after analogous or similar bars, e.g. bars 74-75. In bar 76, a slur was added already in EE and GE3. A similar situation in bar 78. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 78
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
As in GE3, in the main text we add slurs after similar figures, e.g. in bars 81-83. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 92-94
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
It is difficult to consider the missing slur in GE an oversight, since the slur in FE consists of two sections in two lines of the text. Therefore, the engraver of GE would have had to overlook two marks (as well as the wedges at the beginning of bar 94). It means that the slur was almost certainly added by Chopin in the last phase of proofreading of FE. A shorter slur in EE is probably a result of the engraver's inaccuracy. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 95-98
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The traces of corrections visible in FE prove that Chopin devoted a great deal of attention to the slurring, e.g. he moved the beginning of the slur in bar 95 a quaver earlier, he combined the slurs at the transition between bars 95-96, while in bar 98 he combined two half-bar slurs in one. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
