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
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

b. 111

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

Slur to penultimate quaver in A

Longer slur in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The longer slur of GE (→FE→EE) is probably a typical inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1, yet fingerings added here later by Chopin – on the last quaver in the proofreading of FE (→EE) and on the first sixth in FED – allow to consider this slur to have been accepted by the composer.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 115-116

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

Continuous slur in A

2 slurs in GE
..

Division of the slur at the bar line is a typical arbitrary decision of GE (→FE→EE), in this case justified by the not entirely clear notation of A at the transition between the pages.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 115-116

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

Slurs in A, literal reading

Slurs in A, interpretation suggested by the editors

Slurs in GE1 (contextual interpretation→

FE→EE)

Slur in GE2
..

The slurs in the L.H. (including the tie) are written in these bars either inaccurately or erroneously in the majority of the sources. The variants related to the sustention or repetition of e1 at the transition between bars 115 and 116 are discussed in the adjacent note. As far as the motivic slurs are concerned, the aforementioned inaccuracies mean that each of the four presented versions could be actually considered an interpretation of the notation of A. In the main text, being at the same time the most plausible, according to us, interpretation of Chopin's intentions, we give slurs compliant with the natural fragmentation of motifs, resulting from the course of the harmony and the hand's position.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 116-117

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

Slur to sixth in bar 117 in A & GE2

Slur to end of bar 116 in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Division of the slur at the bar line is a typical arbitrary decision of GE1 (→FE→EE). Moreover, a staccato dot was overlooked in bar 117, which completely distorted the image of phrasing in this fragment. In GE2 the slur was led to the quaver in bar 117, in accordance with A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 118

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

Continuous slur in A

Slurs separated in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In this case, the change of slurring introduced in GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2) may come from Chopin. It is indicated by:

  • intense corrections of slurs in GE1 in the next line (bars 119-121);
  • an atypical to the manner of the engraver of GE1 place of division of the slur (not on a bar line or in the middle of a bar);
  • a correction visible in A at the beginning of bar 117 – the slur from the preceding bar originally reached the e1 semiquaver. It suggests that Chopin considered beginning a new slur from the 2nd crotchet in the bar (together with a new chord in the L.H.), hence exactly as we see it in GE1 in bar 118.

On the other hand, the clear and uncorrected mistakes in reproducing slurs in bars 115-117, preceding this place, dictate caution in the assessment of the slurring of GE1. Due to this reason, in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic slur of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Authentic corrections of GE