Slurs
|
b. 234-235
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text, we give slurs modelled after the previous phrase (bars 232-233), assuming an erroneous interpretation of the Chopinesque notation in this place. Out of four similar places (bars 232-239), a division of the slur between the bars appears twice, whereas a division after the 1st semiquaver triplet – only once, in the discussed bars (in bars 236-237, none of the slurs encompass the 1st triplet). Such a change was introduced already in GE3. However, one cannot rule out that Chopin approved of a differentiated slurring of those four phrases, since it indicated various aspects of this sometimes bimelodic figuration. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 237
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, leaving the 1st triplet without slur is a clear inaccuracy of notation, probably committed by the engraver of FE, although inaccurate slurs of [A] are also likely. The slurs can be corrected by prolonging the slur in bar 236 or by starting earlier the one from bar 237. In the main text, we give the former due to its statistical advantage in similar places – 2 appearances (bars 232-233 and 238-239) to one (bars 234-235). The solution analogous to bars 234-235 may be considered an alternative interpretation of the slurs of FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 250-252
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slurs added in GE3 – after the authentic slurs of the L.H. – most probably correspond to a performance envisioned by Chopin. However, we do not add them in the main text, since division into particular figures results here from the very shape of motifs, emphasised by beams. Similar slurs were introduced in GE3 also in bars 256-257. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 256-257
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The slurs added in EE and GE3, probably by analogy with similar motifs in bars 250-251, may be considered justified – it cannot be ruled out that missing articulation indications in the L.H. are only an oversight. However, the context of both places is not fully analogous – bars 250-251 do not contain slurs, whereas in the discussed bars there is one slur over both figures. That slur can refer to both hands, which makes completion of slurs in the L.H. problematic. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 256-257
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
From the pianistic point of view, the division of the slur in GE3 is justified – it is most likely that both the present figures and those in bars 250-252 are to be performed with the same articulation Chopin indicated for the first time in the L.H. part. However, the slur of the remaining sources may be understood as phrasing and not articulation, hence we preserve it in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
