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. 119-122

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

..

The interpretation of the slurring of A in these bars, supported by the rhythmic notation (separated semiquavers in bar 120 and minims in bars 121-122), is beyond any doubt. However, at an attempt to interpret the slurs literally, they can seem to be misleading – both separated semiquavers in bar 120 seem to be at the same time the last and first notes of subsequent slurs; the phenomenon is even clearer in bars 121-122. Admittedly, in GE1 the slurs were reproduced correctly, in accordance with the musical sense, yet it is already a result of an intense proofreading – in the entire line of GE1, spanning bars 119-121, one can see traces of correction of slurs, probably more than once (in bar 120 traces indicate deletion of two slurs of a different, yet partially overlapping range). Two phases of proofreading, out of which the first did not yield satisfactory results, may suggest that Chopin, having seen a great number of errors, ordered to perform the proofreading after A in the first phase and it was only in the second phase that he personally marked the still remaining, substantial inaccuracies.
The traces were most probably one of the reasons one decided to engrave again the entire bottom part of the page (more than a half) when preparing GE1a. The makeover spanned bars 119-127 and the bottom most elements in bars 116-118, e.g. the tie of e in bars 117-118. In spite of a significant volume of work, no mistakes were committed, which would happen in other similar cases – see the characterization of GE1.  

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1

b. 119-120

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

No slur in sources

Slur suggested by the editors
..

Sustaining the e bass note suggests that the articulation of this pair of chords does not differ from the remaining motifs in these bars, including an analogous ascending sequence at the transition between bars 120 and 121. In this situation, we consider the missing motivic slur to be Chopin's oversight.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 119-120

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

Tie & slur in A & GE2

Slur e1-c1 in GE1

Slur d​1-c1 in FE (→EE)
..

Out of the two curved lines written in A, the tie of e1 and the motivic slur of d1-c1, GE1 made one slur embracing e1-c1. The mistake was partially corrected in FE (→EE), in which the slur combines d1-c1. The correct text is only in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 123

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

Slur from 2nd note in A & GE2

Slur from 1st note in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Starting a slur from the beginning of a bar is a characteristic inaccuracy of GE1 (→FE→EE), corrected in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 125

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

Slur in A, most probable reading

Slurs in A (possible reading→GE→FE→EE)
..

The slurs of A could be interpreted as GE (→FE→EE) did, since the slur in bar 126 (on a new page) begins over the 1st note in the bar. However, the shape of the slur does not exclude continuation, whereas the slur in bar 125 is clearly dragged beyond the bar line, which makes the intention of a continuous slur much more likely.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A