Slurs
|
b. 352
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slur suggested in the main text corresponds to similar slurs in analogous bars 353 and 354. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 355
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slur of FE (→EE, reproduced inaccurately in GE) almost certainly does not correspond to Chopin's intention – it is either a mistake of the engraver or a fault of [A]. In the main text, we prolong it so that it encompasses also the 1st half of the bar, yet one can assume that Chopin would have started the slur even earlier, i.e. in bar 354, if he had paid attention to this place. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 363
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing slur in FE (→GE1→GE2) must be an oversight – slurs are present in similar figures both before (bar 361) and after (bars 369 and 371). Therefore, in the main text we include the addition introduced in EE and GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 372-373
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, the varying ranges of the slurs in bars 373 and 377 may result from misunderstanding of the manner of encompassing the full rhythmic value of the last note with a slur ('slurs-tenuto'), used by Chopin on a number of occasions. The slurs visible in FE would be two attempts to adjust such slurs to the notes in the top voice. In the main text, we suggest reconstruction of such a notation in both bars. The slurs were unified also in GE3, which considered the version of bar 373 to be inaccurate. It can be regarded as an alternative attempt to interpret the slurs of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||
|
b. 373-374
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In FE, the slurring of these bars is inaccurate – the slur in the 2nd half of bar 373 ends between the penultimate and the last semiquaver, whereas in bar 374, on a new line of text, there is a slur, reaching the 1st quaver, suggesting continuation from the previous bar. We consider the interpretation adopted in EE to be the text of FE, while the version of GE may be considered an alternative interpretation. As the 2nd triplet in bar 373 left without slur is also questionable, in the main text we suggest a slurring modelled after analogous bars 377-378. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in GE , Annotations in FEH |
2 in 
