



Slurs
b. 262-263
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
It seems to be unlikely that Chopin could have imagined a different articulation of semiquavers than in the adjacent bars; therefore, we consider the missing slur to be an inaccuracy of notation, quite frequent in this Concerto, cf. e.g. 1st mov., bars 201-202. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||
b. 267
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we suggest adding a slur after the identical slur in bar 265. The slur was added already in EE and GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 273-277
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slurs in the 1st halves of bars 273 and 277 may be considered inaccurate – see the note to bar 30. However, we preserve the source slurs in the main text, since when the main theme of this movement returns, they consistently appear in all three appearances of this motif (the discussed bars and bar 281). category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||
b. 281
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
A comparison with analogous phrases at the beginning of this movement of the Concerto may point to an inaccuracy of the slur in the 1st half of the bar – see the note to bar 30. We include that possibility in the form of our alternative suggestion. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||
b. 283-284
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slur of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) is almost certainly too long – the engraver must have confused the b3 quaver in bar 283 with the b2 quaver in bar 284, which is placed at the same height. Therefore, we acknowledge the correction introduced in GE3 in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |