Issues : Legato & slurs
|
b. 1-5
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The slur is present in the orchestral part sources, MFrorch and FEorch. Therefore, it may have been omitted by accident. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that legatiss. in FE (→GE,EE) was aimed at mitigating the absence of that slur – there is no place to add a slur in FE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Legato & slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
According to us, the placement of the legatissimo indication, if it reproduces the notation of the autograph accurately, is of a conventional nature – there is no reason for that indication not to concern also the first half of the bar. Due to that reason, we place it slightly earlier in the main text. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Centrally placed marks , Legato & slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 54
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), there are no slurs in the L.H., differently than in analogous bar 13. In GE3, a slur over the 1st half of the bar was added; it is difficult to say what the motivation of the reviser was for adding only one slur in this bar. In the main text, we preserve the notation of FE, since Chopin most probably considered the legato indication to be enough – cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bar 139, in which the sempre legato indication replaced the slurs present in an analogous place. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that legato was added as an easier way of correcting the accidentally overlooked slurs – in the entire theme (bars 54-62), Chopin provides the accompaniment with slurs already from the next bar (except for bar 58). Due to this reason, we suggest adding slurs in the discussed bar as an alternative solution. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Legato & slurs |
