mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

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. 72-73

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

End of slur in A, contextual interpretation

GE (→FE→EE)
..

When interpreted literally, the slur of A ends over the penultimate semiquaver in bar 72. While the very inaccuracy of notation is hardly disputable, it is uncertain where the slur was supposed to reach, according to Chopin's intention. The interpretation of the editions is certainly possible, yet, according to us, embracing the entire first musical thought (to the F1-F octave in bar 73) is more likely, showing the overlapping segments of this introduction to the 1st theme in the solo part better. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 73

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

Long accent in A

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Short accent in GE2
..

The long accent, overlooked in GE1 (→FE→EE), was reproduced in GE2 as short.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 73-74

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

 &  in A (→GE→FE→EE)

 in FED, probable interpretation

 &  in FED, possible interpretation
..

The  hairpin added in FED questions the validity of other dynamic signs in this place. The sign concerns the major part of the area of validity of , present in all sources. One melodic line cannot be performed both crescendo and diminuendo at the same time, hence we have to assume that the added sign replaces the printed one, although the latter was not deleted. Perhaps we should also reject  after which performing the ascending line  seems to be problematic. Taking into account the above doubts, in the main text we leave the version of A and of the remaining sources, while in the version of FED we omit  and we leave the inclusion of  to the discretion of the performer.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 73

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

..

In FE (→EE) the slur is led already from the F crotchet at the beginning of the bar. It is most probably an inaccuracy caused by a clumsy graphic layout of GE1, where not enough space was dedicated for the 1st half of the bar so that the slur, placed high, seems to point to this crotchet. The beginning of the slur of FE, even if we assume that it intentionally applies to the F1 minim, remains practically equal to the notation of A (→GE), hence we do not consider this version to be an actual variant, due to its most probably accidental origin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 74-75

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

Slur in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

Slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The slurs of A are not entirely clear due to deletions and to the fact that the final version of bar 75 was written on a separate stave. According to us, although the notation includes two separate slurs, the way they overlap clearly indicates an intention of combining them. This is how it was interpreted in GE2 and this could have also been the aim of the engraver of GE1, which, however, remains uncertain due to an inconsistent notation: at the end of the page, in bar 74, the slur suggests a continuation, yet at the beginning of bar 75 there is rather a new slur. In FE (→EE) the doubt was resolved in favour of the separated slurs and this is how we interpret GE1.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions