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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 73

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

Long accent in A

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Short accent in GE2
..

The long accent, overlooked in GE1 (→FE→EE), was reproduced in GE2 as short.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 73-74

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

 &  in A (→GE→FE→EE)

 in FED, probable interpretation

 &  in FED, possible interpretation
..

The  hairpin added in FED questions the validity of other dynamic signs in this place. The sign concerns the major part of the area of validity of , present in all sources. One melodic line cannot be performed both crescendo and diminuendo at the same time, hence we have to assume that the added sign replaces the printed one, although the latter was not deleted. Perhaps we should also reject  after which performing the ascending line  seems to be problematic. Taking into account the above doubts, in the main text we leave the version of A and of the remaining sources, while in the version of FED we omit  and we leave the inclusion of  to the discretion of the performer.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 80

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

Long accent in A & FE

 in GE

Short accent in EE
..

The typical long accent visible in A was reproduced in GE1 as . In subsequent editions, the sign would adopt a varied form, which was caused by a different density of notation and minor shifts, resulting from distinct habits of the engravers.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies

b. 83-85

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

 in A

 in GE (→FE)

Accent &  in EE
..

The shortened  hairpin in bars 83 and 85 is certainly an inaccuracy of GE (→FE→EE). The figure – or its variant – appears four times (bars 83, 85, 91 and 93) and each time the sign embraces in A four quavers. In the editions, only in bar 91 the sign was reproduced correctly. In EE, due to a very dense placement of notes, the hairpin in bar 83 took the form of an accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies

b. 87

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

No markings in A & GE2

Dot & slur in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

In GE1 (→FE→EE) the first group of quavers is provided with the same markings as the next: with a staccato dot on the 1st note and a slur. It is certainly a mistake: an error or rather an attempt of revision. The signs were removed in GE2, restoring the text of A, in which the markings appear in the figures spanning at least a tenth.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions