mUltimate Chopin

Issues : Annotations in teaching copies

« Previous
1
…
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Next »

b. 148-149

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

Slur to g¹ in A & FED

Slur to a¹ in GE (→FE→EE)

In spite of the correction of the slur of A, which Chopin extended to the g¹ crotchet, the editions embraced with it only the group of small notes. Chopin restored the correct phrasing with an entry in FED.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccuracies in GE , Corrections in A

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 149

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

Slur from 1st crotchet in A (literal reading→GE→FE→EE)

Slur from octave in A (contextual interpretation) & FED

The slur of A, when interpreted literally, seems to start from the beginning of the bar and this is how it was reproduced in the editions. However, both the previous slur, led to the beginning of this bar, and con duolo placed only over the second crotchet suggest that the new musical thought should begin just from the second crotchet. The intuition is confirmed by the Chopin entry in FED, in which the ending of the slur added over the roulade in bar 148 clearly separates the g¹crotchet from the further course of music.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccurate slurs in A

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 149

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

in the sources

No marking in FED, possible reading

In FED, is crossed by a slightly diagonal line, which can be interpreted as a deletion. However, the meaning of the dash is not certain – in Chopin pupils' copies, there are fragments containing such delicate dashes, drawn probably when discussing problematic places for the pupil. Most frequently, the dashes are of no specific meaning; they simply prove a more intense work on a given fragment.

It is also unclear what a possible deletion could mean. If not then ? Or maybe that was valid before the said ? In the face of these doubts, we suggest the absence of , being a result of a possible deletion, only as one of possible interpretations of FED.