Interpretation of the notation of FE poses problems whose origins go back not only to the relationship between the solo part and the orchestral accompaniment, but also to the mutual relationship between the presented version for solo piano and the full version for piano with orchestra. It results from the following facts:
-
Placement of the notes to one another does not correspond to the rhythmic values – placing the b1 quaver, opening the piano phrase, over the f
and d1 semiquavers suggests playing all three notes simultaneously. It means that either the b1 quaver should be placed earlier or that some of the values should be corrected. -
On the 4th beat of the bar, there is a dotted rhythm in the FEpiano piano reduction, whereas in the corresponding violin and cello parts in FEorch, there are quavers:
.
Any attempts to reproduce the course of events that led to the above discrepancies are doomed to failure, since none of the few sources in which possible corrections could have been performed survived. Therefore, it is impossible to verify the hypotheses on the chronological order of the versions and the reasons the discrepancies arose.
We shall begin the analysis from the second issue. It seems highly unlikely that such a difference could have occurred completely by accident, e.g. as a mistake at the time of copying. It particularly concerns the parts of violin I, violin II and cello, since the writing person would have had to commit a mistake in the same place while writing each of the parts, hence three times. It is easier to imagine a possible mistake in FE – the spaces between the notes in FE are even on the 2nd beat of the bar and uneven on the 4th one. It suggests that on the 2nd beat there were initially quavers, whereas on the fourth one – a dotted rhythm, hence the other way round than in the parts and, perhaps, the other way round than it should be. It was corrected only on the 2nd beat, which was less time-consuming, since it did not require removing the already printed elements: it was enough to add short semiquaver beams and extending dots ('a partial proofreading').
Nevertheless, such a scenario also seems to be highly unlikely, since it assumes a mistake in the assignment of rhythms and then an inaccuracy in the implementation of the proofreading. We are left with the second possibility, i.e. the discussed difference is not accidental. It could have been a result of an uncoordinated Chopinesque correction in one of the sources (FEpiano or FEorch) or it could have been actually intended by Chopin. An uncoordinated correction means that Chopin changed the concept of the rhythm on the 4th beat of the bar, which offers two possibilities:
- a later version with quavers
he could have written it as a semiquaver after the doubly dotted crotchet. Due to this reason, in the main text we move it before the final semiquaver of the piano reduction; an identical change was introduced both in GE and EE. However, in the parts of string instruments – violin and cello – the last note in the bar is a quaver, hence the dotted rhythm in the piano reduction could have been introduced only in the proofreading of FE. In this scenario, there are two possible explanations for the problematic notation of FE:
- the layout of the text was left by inadvertence; Chopin's intention was to rhythmically separate the quaver in the solo part from the semiquavers in the accompaniment;
- the layout of the text preserves the intended relationship between the solo part and the accompaniment – simultaneous performance of the last note in the bar in all parts – and the inaccuracy concerns the notation of the rhythm in the upper voices.
The first possibility leads again to the version adopted in the main text, whereas the second one to the version suggested as an alternative interpretation of the notation of FE.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Inaccuracies in FE, GE revisions
notation: Rhythm