data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
In FE, one can see traces of proofreading of the slurs in bars 501-503 – originally, each of those bars was encompassed with a separate slur. If we take into account that Chopin combined also the slurs over bars 496-497, one can ponder whether leaving a musically unjustified division of the slur between bars 500-501 was intentional. It is likely that the proofreading was supposed to concern this place too, yet it was inaccurately implemented.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information
issues: Authentic corrections of FE, Omitted correction of an analogous place
notation: Slurs