mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 169-170

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Slurs in A (contextual interpretation→GE)

Slurs in FE

Slurs in EE
..

The astonishingly precise slurs of GE were most probably proofread by Chopin. It is indicated by minor traces of corrections and by the version of FE, which probably reflects the state prior to the proofreading. See also the adjacent note on staccato dots.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 169-170

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

No marks in A & FE (→EE)

Staccato dots on e's in GE
..

The staccato dots over the e notes in GE are almost certainly a result of a Chopin proofreading, presumably in the last stage of corrections.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 169-170

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

 in A

Alternative interpretation of A

 in GE (→FE)

 in EE
..

In the main text, we reproduce the range and placement of the  hairpin after A. In the editions, the sign was moved to between the staves, which, in this case, may, according to us, impede its correct interpretation. Placed like accents, over the melody, it seems to perform a similar function (as if of very long accents), emphasising the dynamic relationship between the suspension of e2 and its resolution, d2. Taking that into account, we regard the notation of bar 170 as clearer and we suggest a version with unified signs after bar 170 as an alternative solution.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 169-170

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

2 slurs in A

1 slur in GE (→FE)

Slur over triplet in EE
..

In the main text we reproduce precisely the notation of A, since it seems to be unlikely that Chopin would like to combine these slurs in one – see bars 171-172. The version of GE (→FE) can be considered to be an acceptable interpretation of the notation of A. The version of EE, unified with the notation of analogous bars 172 and 174, adopted from FE, must be – in the light of the notation of A – considered erroneous.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 169-170

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Slur in A

Slur in GE1 (→FE)

Slur in EE

Slur in GE2

2 slurs suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the slur over (under) the triplet in bar 170 is certainly Chopin's oversight, who overlooked the entire marking of the triplet – digit and slur. In the main text we add both. In GE1 (→FE) the two-note slur of A was replaced with a longer one, embracing the entire motif. It seems to be likely that it is Chopin's proofreading, although one can have doubts whether a possible entry of the composer in the proof copy was reproduced correctly: Chopin could have been thinking of a shorter slur, like in GE2. The version of EE is certainly arbitrary. We give a more detailed analysis of the slurs of both hands in these and analogous bars in bars 171-172. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE