In FE, a few patent mistakes and inaccuracies crept into the notation of these bars (see the adjacent note); however, it is the notation of the tremolando that is the main issue; in these bars, not only does the tremolando – contrary to analogous bars 329-332 – complement the trill on f
2(3), but it also doubles it in its notation. Moreover, certain features of the notation prove that it was not fully analogous to the notation in exposition in its original form. It was only in print that it was added. The change was most probably aimed at specifying how both elements of that figure are to be combined. A possible doubt could have concerned only the issue whether the trill is to be started from the main or upper note. A classical rule, generally respected by Chopin, requires the trill to be started from the upper note; however, one of the known exceptions required the trill to be started from the main note if the upper note directly preceded the trill. The fact that this is the situation in bars 666-667 could have influenced the decision to change the notation. However, due to the following reasons, in the main text we return to the original notation:
- it is a notation that both in a legible and efficient way shows the Chopinesque manner of understanding this figure as a trill – being, at this stage of the Concerto, an element of convention fixed by tradition – enhanced by tremolando that envelops it;
- Chopin used an analogous combination of trill with tremolando in the 1st movement of the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, written earlier (bars 179-180 and 335-336). While preparing the Concerto in F Minor for print three years after the Concerto in E Minor, the composer preserved that notation, which supports the argument that he was not satisfied with the notation introduced in the discussed bars and did not want to duplicate it;
- there are no doubts that the performance manner of the figure is to be identical both here and in exposition. Therefore, introducing a more complicated notation with the same meaning does not seem to be intentional;
- Chopin did not fully control the result of the proofreading in this place, which is proven by the aforementioned mistakes (two of them concern elements added in the proofreading);
- it cannot be excluded that the fact of introducing this kind of 'performance commentary' was suggested to Chopin, e.g. by the publisher;
- it seems that the proofread notation already raised doubts of the engravers of GE and EE, since it was partially modified in both editions (see below), while in the corresponding bars of exposition, the notation of FE was preserved.
In GE and EE, the notation of FE was subjected to further changes – the erroneous note in bar 667 was corrected and the missing extending dots were added. In addition, the tremolando was written out with semiquavers in bar 667 (GE) or in the entire four-bar section (EE). In the latter, a tremolando indication was added in bar 667 and f3, overlooked in bar 670, was added (the addition was introduced also in GE3).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, GE revisions, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Shorthand & other
