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. 328-329

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

No L.H. slur in A

Slur over L.H. part in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Longer slur under L.H. part in GE2
..

The slur over the final section of the passage in the L.H. written on the bottom stave is most probably an addition of the revision of GE1 (→FE→EE). In turn, moving the beginning of this slur to bar 327, introduced in GE2, is undoubtedly a revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 335-336

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

No slur in A

Tie in GE1 (literal reading→FE→EE)
& GE2

Slur in GE1, contextual interpretation
..

Due to pitch errors both in A and GE2 (in bar 335) as well as in GE1 and in the remaining editions (in bar 336), it is difficult to evaluate the authenticity of the curved line appearing in the editions and to unravel its meaning. It combines notes at the same pitch level – b1 in GE1 (→FE→EE) and c2 in GE2 (literal interpretation) – which confers it the nature of a tie. According to us, the curved line could have been added by Chopin together with the proofreading of the erroneous trilled note in bar 335 or by the engraver of GE1 together with the superfluous change of the crotchet in bar 336. Taking into account that in GE1 these bars are on different pages, it is more likely to relate the curved line to a change performed on the same page, hence in bar 335, particularly since in bar 336 GE1 does not include the ending of this curved line at all. It leads to a version with a slur linking the trilled b1 with the c2 crotchet, to a certain extent analogous to the ending of the exposition (bars 179-180). In face of source and interpretative doubts concerning the curved line, in the main text we leave the version without it, written in A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 335-336

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

No slurs in A & GE2

Slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Four slurs added in GE1 (→FE→EE) almost certainly do not come from Chopin, which is indicated by their string origin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 345

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

Slurs in A, contextual interpretation

Slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In A the slur under the motif in the R.H. ends on a, whereas the corresponding slur in the L.H. – on B. A comparison with the slurs in the next bar allows to consider the first of them to be inaccurate. The slurs in GE can be a result of Chopin's proofreading, since leading the slurs to the end of the motifs is more natural here – cf. the authentic slurs e.g. in bars 4-6. In turn, an earlier beginning of the slurs in FE (→EE), being contrary to the structure of the motifs, cannot come from Chopin and is probably a result of an erroneous interpretation of the slurs of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 346

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

Slurs in A

Slurs in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The slurs in this and in the previous bar in GE1 were probably proofread by Chopin; however, the slur in the R.H. was left without correction here. It was considered a mistake both in FE (→EE) and in GE2, by extending this slur after the remaining ones. We also consider it to be an inadvertence, hence in the main text we give slurs embracing the entire motif in both hands.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of GE