Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
|
b. 29-30
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
Interpretation of the slurs beginning in bar 29 encounters difficulties, since both the first and the second are written in A in a way allowing for various interpretations. The first, when interpreted literally, would separate the grace notes starting the trill from the trilled note, hence it has to reach either further, which we consider the text of A, or closer, as it was interpreted in GE (→FE→EE). The second begins over the triplet, yet an intention of it having started earlier cannot be entirely excluded. Therefore, one can deem the interpretation of GE (→FE) to be justified too; even the version of EE cannot be definitely considered to be incompatible with Chopin's intention. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 30
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur written in A over the group of 15 demisemiquavers was, according to Chopin's intention, certainly supposed to embrace the entire group, which, as far as the right end is concerned, was interpreted in this way in GE (→FE→EE). In turn, the fact of initiating it already from the previous semiquaver, as it is in GE (→FE), is certainly a mistake. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slur of A is written vehemently both on the right-hand side, where no ambiguities concerning its range arise, and on the left-hand side, where one could have doubts whether it should start from the 1st or 2nd quaver of the 2nd half of the bar. A comparison of slurs of A in similar situations clearly proves that at the time of writing A Chopin's intention was a slur from the 2nd quaver. This is how it was interpreted in GE2. The interpretation of GE1 (→FE→EE) may be considered justified, yet it is most probably erroneous. Cf. the possibly Chopin proofreading in analogous bar 81. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 42-44
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The slurring of the R.H. in A is inaccurate and unclear:
The slurs of A in bar 42 were overlooked in GE1 (→FE→EE); however, in EE parallel slurs on the last beat of the bar were added (it is most probably an editorial revision). In turn, the slur over the demisemiquavers in bar 43 could have been added in GE by Chopin; its beginning is certainly inaccurate, which was corrected in FE (→EE) and GE2. We include the slur, in the version of FE, in the main text, being, apart from that, an interpretation of the slurs of A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Corrections in A , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 44
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II
..
The range of the slur over the orchestral motif is unclear in A: the slur indeed reaches above the beginning of the solo piano passage, yet its shape does not suggest leading it to the 4th beat of the bar. In the main text we adopt the interpretation of GE (→FE→EE), compatible with the slurs of Morch and more natural due to a rapid change of register. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
