Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 115
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slur added in GE, although most probably inauthentic, is, however, justified – an identical motif in the next bar is encompassed with a slur, a three-note slur is also present in both parts of violins in FEorch (→GEorch). In the main text, we do not interfere with the notation of FE (→EE), but we alternatively suggest a slur of such a range. The placement of the slurs is discussed in the next note. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 115-118
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
One can doubt whether the slurs of FE (→EE) faithfully convey Chopin's intention – above all, it is the combination of two three-note motifs in bars 116-117 that is puzzling; the absence of slurs in bar 117 (and 115) may also be considered an inaccuracy. Those objections are confirmed by the explicit notation of FEorch (→GEorch), in which all the aforementioned motifs are consistently separated with slurs in both parts of violins. It is perhaps on that basis that GE1 (→GE2) separated the slur in bars 116-117. According to us, it is also highly likely that the Chopinesque slurs – regardless of their number and range – were written over the notes, since the main melodic line is constituted by the topmost notes of the chords. Moving indications – slurs, dots, accents – to the side of noteheads, which was considered the right placement, was frequently used in Chopinesque editions. Therefore, in the main text we give the slurs of FE moved to above the stave; we give the slurs of GE1 (→GE2) – also moved – as an alternative suggestion. The version of GE3, which drastically changes the text of FE (→GE1→GE2), is totally arbitrary. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 116-117
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, the missing staccato dots over the quaver in bar 116 and semiquavers in bar 117 must be considered an inaccuracy in the face of dots in the analogous places in bars 115-118. The mark in bar 116 was added in EE, while all three dots were added in GE3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 118-119
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing articulation markings in the L.H. on the last three quavers of the Tutti must be considered an inaccuracy. The marks were added in EE and, partially, in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 120-122
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The longer slur of GE3 corresponds with its range to the slur featured in the next passage (bars 124-126) in FE. Since the aforementioned slur of FE, having been added probably in the last phase of proofreading, seems to be more credible, it cannot be excluded that the version of GE3 may correspond to the composer's intention. Therefore, it can be considered a variant of uncertain authenticity. In such a context, both versions have practically the same meaning. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
