Slurs
|
b. 88-89
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major
..
The lack of a L.H. slur in FE (→EE) is probably an oversight – see the next motif. Therefore we adopt the GE version in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 96-97
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major
..
Taking into account the slurs in this fragment, we consider the absence of slurs in FE (→GE,EE) to be an oversight, particularly since this bar is between the lines, which increases the likelihood of such mistakes. In the main text we suggest adding respective slurs. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 101
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major
..
The lack of a L.H. slur in FE (→GE) is probably an oversight, so we add it in the main text, as was done in EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 102-105
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major
..
In the main text we include – in a variant form – the R.H. slurs entered most probably by Chopin between bars 102-103 and 104-105. Taking into account their convergence with the principal slurring pattern in this variation, we suggest adding respective slurs in the L.H. part as well. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 121-123
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major
..
The shorter slurs over the demisemiquavers in the 1st halves of bar 121 and 123 most probably resulted from routine revision performed by EE – the slurs were adjusted to the demisemiquaver groups and brought into line with the slurs at the end of these bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
