Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
|
b. 201-202
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Similarly as in bars 199-200, the tie of g1 was interpreted in GE (→FE→EE) as a phrase mark, combining the c1-e1 minim in bar 201 with g1 in bar 202. One has to admit that the notation of A is unclear in this case, even if we consider the Chopin way of notation of ties – Chopin wrote the part of the tie falling in bar 201 longer than usual, as he probably wanted to make the notation more legible. However, it was counterproductive: the beginning of the "longer" tie does not reach g1 anyway and it points to e1. The correct interpretation of the tie is indicated by the shape of its ending in bar 202, typical for ties, and the tie of g1 in the 1st violin part in Morch. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 203-204
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
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 category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||
|
b. 205-207
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In bars 205-206, ending the page in A, the slur is led only over the R.H. However, on a new page, in bar 207 the ending of the slur is written in the parts of both hands. It can be simply an insignificant mistake, yet, according to us, writing the slur also in the L.H. proves that Chopin was convinced that he wrote slurs for both hands in the previous bars. Perhaps the slur in GE2 was added on that basis – it is absent in GE1 (→FE→EE1). A slur added only in bar 206 in EE2 (→EE3) is absolutely arbitrary. See also bars 212-213. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 212-213
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In A there is only an ending of the slur in bar 213 (on a new page). Similarly as in bars 205-207, we assume that it demonstrates that the composer's intention was to embrace with a slur the preceding phrase or motif, which in this case comes down to emphasising the unexpected e category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||
|
b. 216-217
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The slur of A is written inaccurately – its ending part includes a one and a half centimetre gap, resulting from ink stoppage, whereas in bar 217 (on a new page) there is no ending of the slur. In this situation, an erroneous interpretation of the slur in the editions was practically decided. In some of the impressions of GE1a, the slur in bar 216 was extended, so that it suggests a continuation. It seems to be a random result, since the ending of the slur in bar 217 was not added. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
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.
-f
