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
Verbal indications
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Verbal indications

b. 155

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

No marking in A (→GE→FE→EE)

in FED

suggested by the editors
..

The sign, added probably by Chopin in FED, is likely to be . In the main text we include the indication in the variant form.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 172

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

Dashes up to last chord in A

No dashes in GE (→FE→EE)
..

Leading crescendo to  in bar 173 seems to be natural, hence in the main text we suggest adding dashes marking the range of this dynamic change. The absence of dashes in the editions is probably a result of an oversight of the engraver of GE1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 174

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

 under chord in A

2  in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The first of two  in GE1 (→FE→EE) could have been added by Chopin, yet, according to us, a mistake of the engraver is more likely; after the erroneously printed  sign at the beginning of the bar, he could have added another one under the chord (having noticed a mistake or performing proofreading), yet he did not delete the first sign. This type of unfinished proofreading, where the erroneously printed element remains in the notation in spite of adding the correct sign, would occur in Chopin's pieces on a number of occasions, e.g. in the Polonais in B major, WN 17, bar 65. In similar motifs, composed of the bass and a longer resounding chord of a syncopated nature, the accent appears much more often on the chord only than on both elements, cf. e.g. the Rondo in E major, Op. 16, bar 37 or Bolero, Op. 19, bar 134, as well as three last examples mentioned in the adjacent note. Therefore, we consider the version of the editions a variant of dubious authenticity and we give A as the main text. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Partial corrections

b. 177-178

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

cre - scen - do in A

cresc. in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In the main text we give crescendo after A, divided into syllables and extended over one and a half bars. Replacing this notation in GE (→FE→EE) with a conventional cresc. abbreviation certainly does not come from Chopin. 

category imprint:

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 181

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

 from 1st quaver in A (literal reading)

 from 2nd quaver in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

No indication in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

In A  is written in such a way that it is unclear whether it is to be valid from the first or 2nd quaver in the bar. Both versions can be justified, as far as music is concerned:

  • in the orchestra part – Morch –  is certainly valid from the beginning of the bar, hence it seems to be natural that it is to be placed in the same way in A;
  • the first quaver in this bar belongs still to the solo part and it has to be performed  as such; the piano reduction of the orchestra part begins only from the 2nd quaver and  is to be applied from this place.

According to us, the second reasoning is more convincing. The absence of  in GE1 (→FE→EE) is probably an oversight, since the adjacent accent was overlooked too.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions