Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

GE1 encompassed the Concerto in a version for solo piano and orchestral parts sold optionally. The present characterization, as well as all the detailed notes, pertain, with only few exceptions, to the version for one piano, consisting of the solo piano part and the authentic piano reductions of the orchestra sections (Tutti).

GE1 is based on A – see the corresponding characterization in the 1st mov. of the Concerto. One of the arguments are places in which the compliant text of the editions is a modification of the notation of A, whereas traces of introducing changes can be seen only in GE1, e.g. in bar 22 or 52).

Piano part in GE1 bears traces of detailed proofreading. However, only some of the introduced alterations can be ascribed to Chopin with high confidence (e.g. cancelled grace note in bar 28, added slurs in the L.H. in bar 15 and 83, perhaps combined slurs in the R.H. in bar 88), and the majority are probably the work of a reviser. In spite of this, some errors, including those repeated after A, remained uncorrected:

• erroneous rhythm in bar 6,
• a¹ instead of c² in the last chord in bar 20,
• sixth instead of fourth in bar 29,
• a² grace note instead of b² in bar 39,
• two overlooked c¹ in bar 41,
• hemidemisemiquavers instead of demisemiquavers in bar 77 and 80,
• adding a superfluous B note in bar 77,
• erroneous ending of the trill in bar 78,
• a few errors in bar 80,
• overlooked b in bar 81, e² in bar 87,
• erroneous correction of the last crotchet in bar 83,

The slurring of GE1 differs significantly from the slurring of A. We discuss the complex reasons for this state of affairs in detail in the characterization of GE1 in the 1st movement of the Concerto. What is more, even in the places where both sources have identical slurs, it is usually a result of proofreading of the original, sometimes very different slurring, e.g. in bars 11-12, 14, 81 (R.H.) or 87. In many places the slurs of GE1 are clearly erroneous, e.g. in bar 3, 9-17, 15, 17, 20, 23, 24, 31, 33, 72-74, 79. When trying to determine Chopin's intention, it is the situations in which the proofreading's results are slurs different to those written in A, which are not always precise, that are most problematic. It is uncertain whether a change was introduced at Chopin's request or, even if it was so, whether he wanted to change the slurring or whether it was only an ad hoc correction of manifest mistakes. Added slurs in the L.H. in the middle fragment (e.g. in bar 62) are rather inauthentic, according to us, which is indicated by, e.g. bars 66-67 or 69-70, in which slurs of little likelihood of authenticity were doubled. Other situations of this kind, i.e. vague from the point of view of sources, are present in, e.g. bars 2-3, 31, 64, 77, 81 (L.H.).

Other most significant alterations of uncertain authenticity appearing in GE1:

• overlooked c¹-a¹ sixth at the beginning of bar 6,
• added pedalling in bars 26-27,
• change of b¹ to b¹ in bar 41,
• change of the grace note opening the trill in bar 76,
• overlooked tie of c² in bar 81.

GE1 overlooked a number of performance markings, often very clearly written in A. It can be attributed to their uncommon abundance and variety – if an engraver was bound by even framework efficiency standards, he would work under a lot of stress and time pressure with this kind of notation. The reason for unifying staccato signs could be similar (e.g. in bar 52, 53-54) as well as for the schematic reproduction of slurs. Examples of overlooked markings are listed below:

•  in bar 13, 
• slurs in bar 15, 17, 59-60, 72-74 and 88,
• tenuto dashes in bar 18 and 86,
• accents and other markings in bars 20-21, accents in bar 23, 35, 38, 72,
• staccato dots in bars 26-28, 35, 
• pedalling markings in bar 26, 82,
•  in bar 44.

There are known copies of GE1 with an earlier variant of the cover, on which the companies in St. Petersburg and Warsaw co-operating with B&H were not mentioned.