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. 283-284

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

Slur in A (possible reading) & GE2

Slur in A (contextual interpretation→GE1→FE→EE)
..

Same as in bars 135-136, the placement and range of the slur of A are unclear – it can refer both to the quavers in the top voice and to the crotchet of the bottom one.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 284

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

Slur to e2 in A

Slur to e2 in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In the main text we give the version of A, in which Chopin marked the ending of the slur on the e2 crotchet with a pronounced penstroke. The version of GE (→FE→EE), probably proofread by Chopin, can be considered equal.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 284-285

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

Slur from f2 in A

Slur from e2 in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The earlier beginning of the slur in the editions may be a result of the Chopin proofreading of GE1. However, not being certain thereof, in the main text we give the version of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 288

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

3 slurs in A, probable interpretation

2 slurs in A (possible interpretation) & GE2

1 slur in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Combining the slurs over the rest in bar 288, as it was done in GE1 (→FE→EE), may be considered to be justified in this case – the slurs in A look like an inaccurately written one slur. In GE2 the manuscript was interpreted correctly. In turn, in the very A the slurring of the junction of the bars, which are written on adjacent pages, is unclear. The slur in bar 288 suggests a continuation, which is not excluded at all by the slur in bar 289. However, when discussed separately, the second slur seems to be a typical slur combining a grace note with a semiquaver associated with it, hence we consider such an interpretation to be more likely and we adopt it as the text of A and the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 289

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

Slurs in A & GE2

Slur in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

It is difficult to qualify the replacement of three two-note slurs of A with a whole-bar slur in GE1 as a mistake or a result of a routine approach of the engraver. It also does not seem to be a proofreading, understood as a change of the slurring of A. According to us, the following hypothesis is likely – the engraver initially printed the bar without any slurs (he also overlooked all staccato dots), which was perhaps corrected by Chopin, by adding one slur. In the main text we give the slurs of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. They were also introduced in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE