mUltimate Chopin

Select:

Category

Notation

Importance

Undo Clear

« Previous
1
…
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
…
3910
Next »

b. 203-204

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

No slurs in A & GE2

Slur in GE1

Slur in FE (→EE)

Slurs suggested by the editors

The absence of the slur (slurs?) separating the solo bassoon phrase in A seems to be Chopin's inadvertence. GE1 has a slur in the 2nd half of bar 204, in which one can see the Chopin proofreading. However, certain arguments show that the addition should be subject to caution – it can be an attempt at an interpretation of the tie of e¹, which was not printed in GE1 (it was taken so in GE2, by removing the slur in the 2nd half of the bar and adding a tie). In FE (→EE) the beginning of the slur adopted from GE1 was printed a crotchet too early, which, theoretically, could also come from Chopin, particularly that the fragment of the melody embraced with the slur is to be performed by the R.H., and the slur separates this part from the bottom stave in a certain way (the original layout does not suggest such a division between the hands, since the entire phrase is written on the bottom stave). As the authenticity of the version of the editions is uncertain, in the main text we suggest slurs written in the bassoon part in Morch, close to the authentic phrasing of the motif that was used here (e.g. in bars 41-42).

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 203

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

FE1 has a before the topmost note of the chord. This striking mistake was corrected in FE2. According to us, the error could have been caused by both staves being graphically similar in this place – the crotchet in the top voice on the 3rd space and a minim (-s) in the bottom one (the change of the rhythmic value of the topmost note must have been introduced later). In such a situation the flat would be a repetition of the sign written – unnecessarily – before e on the bottom stave.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 203

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

In the main text we omit the unjustified flats before the e and a crotchets.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 203-204

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

Slur in A, probable interpretation

Possible interpretation of slur in A

Slurs in GE (→FE→EE)

The slur in A is written very firmly, yet its endings are not clearly combined with any particular notes, which leaves room for various interpretations, from to . If the slur had been written before the last crotchet in bar 203 was corrected – the erased crotchet was placed more to the left and had a stem pointing upwards – it was undoubtedly the crotchet that marked its beginning. We assume that it was so, and we interpret the ending of the bar quasi-literally as a slur-tenuto to the end of the bar. We also allow an alternative interpretation of this slur as ending in bar 205.
It seems that GE (→FE→EE) adopted the second of the possibilities illustrated above, writing it, however, in the form of three overlapping slurs – this unnecessarily complicated notation may be explained by the addition of slurs, as a proofreading of the original incomplete notation.