mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

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. 23

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

Long accents in A

No marks in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Short accents in GE2
..

It is difficult to say what the motivation of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE) was while he overlooked four very distinct long accents of A. He may have considered them to be superfluous in the face of the accents of the R.H. In GE2 the accents were reproduced as short.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 23

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

Long accents in GE1

Short accents in FE & GE2

Vertical accents in EE
..

Three accents in A are of a different length: the first can be safely assumed to be long, yet the classification of the next two is unclear. We assume that they are long accents, since there are no musical reasons for them to be equal (actually, they are much bigger than the accent in the R.H. in the previous bar). This is how they were interpreted in GE1, which, however, was not reproduced both in FE and GE2. EE used vertical accents, which is quite a frequent revision in that edition.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 23

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

 in A, probable interpretation

 in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The  sign written in A has uneven arms. We assume (also in the main text) that the intentional range of the sign is marked by the upper arm, more specifically by its initial fragment, separated from the main part of the sign as a result of a break in the ink supply. The editions may have taken into account the lower arm, yet the sign in GE (→FE→EE) is even longer, which certainly does not result from the notation of A.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 24

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

 in A

Shorter  in GE (→FE→EE)
..

Shortening the  sign in order to adjust it to the beam is a typical inaccuracy of the engraver of GE (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 25-26

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

 in bars 25-26 in A (→GE)

  in FE

 in bar 26 in EE
..

In FE (same as in our transcripts) bar 26 falls on a new line. The division of the  sign was performed in such a way that in both bars a respectively shortened  hairpin was printed (according to the then used earlier convention). EE overlooked the first sign.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Hairpins denoting continuation