Slurs
|
b. 268-269
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
When interpreted literally, the slur of A ends still in bar 268. According to us, the notation, however, does not exclude an intention of leading it to the last note of the phrase in the next bar. We suggest this interpretation, compliant with the phrase's structure, in the main text. Doubled slurs in the L.H. in the editions – see the note to bar 267. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 268-269
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The change of the continuous slur of A to overlapping slurs in the editions may be, according to us, a result of the proofreading of the original inaccurate slurring of GE1 – Chopin could have e.g. added the first slur, if initially only the second had been printed. In such a situation, the slurs of GE (→FE→EE) could be regarded as an equal variant of notation. However, in the main text we leave the undoubtedly authentic version of A. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 269-271
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The absence of the slur in the L.H. in A must be considered an inaccuracy of notation. Chopin may have wanted to add a slur in GE1, but only a fragment of it was printed in bar 269 – the slur suggests a continuation, yet in bar 270, on a new line, there is no continuation. Both in FE (→EE) and GE2 the slur was interpreted as embracing only three crotchets in bar 269. Moreover, EE added also an arbitrary slur from the last crotchet in bar 270 to the third third in bar 271. In the main text we suggest a slur analogous to bars 1-3. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 271-272
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Over the part of the R.H. (in some editions under), apart from the top, several-bar-long slur, the sources include one or two additional slurs of varied range. According to us, it is most probably only the slur of A that is authentic, hence we give it in the main text. The absence of visible traces of corrections of slurs in GE1 makes a possible Chopin proofreading highly unlikely, whereas the subsequent minor changes of the range of the first slur, of inaccurate (FE) or revisional (EE and GE2) nature and actually without impact on the performance, cannot be authentic. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 274
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
The slur of the bottom voice, appearing in GE instead of the slur of the top voice written in A, is probably a mistake, although its addition by Chopin cannot be entirely excluded (e.g. if in the proof copy no slur was included, Chopin could have added two and the engraver only the bottom one). In any case, in the proofreading of FE (→EE) Chopin restored the top slur, without removing the bottom one, so that next to the version of A one can also notice the version of FE with two slurs. In the main text we give the version of A, since the authenticity of the bottom slur is not as unquestionable as of the top one; moreover, the top slur applies to the entire part of the R.H. by default. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
