Slurs
|
b. 377
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we suggest a likely reconstruction of the notation of [A]. However, it is also the sources' literal interpretation of the slur that could correspond to Chopin's intention. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||
|
b. 379-380
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slur in EE was most probably added after the slur featured in the analogous situation four bars earlier. It would be justified if it were not for the fact that the slur in bars 375-376 could be inaccurate. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 380
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The traces of proofreading, visible in FE, reveal that the originally printed slur encompassed only the semiquavers in bar 380. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 384-385
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The missing continuation of the slur in the further part of the passage in the L.H. is most probably an inaccuracy, caused by difficulties in drawing or reproducing the slur encompassing the topmost semiquavers, written by Chopin under the R.H. on the bottom stave. Various additions to the slur of FE (→EE1,GE1→GE2) were proposed in EE2 (→EE3) and GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 391
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Moving the slur under the stave was certainly caused by graphic issues. The absence of the slur in GE3 can be explained by an oversight or revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
