mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of GE

b. 23-25

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

2 slurs in A, probable interpretation

3 slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)

2 slurs in A (possible interpretation) & GE2

Our alternative suggestion
..

The range of the slurs in the L.H. in A is unclear; in the main text we give the most likely interpretation. The slurring of GE1 (→FE→EE) is probably a combination of the initial inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 and the later, perhaps authentic, proofreading of this edition. We suggest a proposal of conciliating this version with the notation of A as an alternative version.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 25

composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major

A & a1 in AI, A (→CDP), FE & EE

A & a1 in GE1

A & a1 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The flats lowering A and a1 to A and a1 in the last group of semiquavers were added in a proofreading of GE (it was not a routine revision, as, e.g., in bar 6, as both added signs differ in typeface from the others). The remaining sources have here A and a1. The question of authenticity of this change (as well as of the change introduced also in GE1 in bar 34) is one of the most difficult editorial problems in Chopin's pieces (see the characteristics of GE1). The version of GE, in which the combination with the next bar is smoother, thanks to a common note (a), and shows signs of Chopin improvement, hence we give it as the basic one (we change the note head of A – in accordance with the rule valid throughout the entire Etude – in the L.H. to a bigger one; it was already performed in GE2 and GE3). There arises a question, why did Chopin not introduce such a hearable change to FE? – at the moment of occurrence of this idea, the edition could have been already finished. In turn, lack of a relevant correction in pupil's copies, FED or FES, can be explained with the fact that after a few years from completing the piece, the original, well-sounding text did not generate opposition of the composer during the lessons. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 25

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

E1-G1-E-G in A, literal reading

G1-B1-E-G in A (probable interpretation) & GE2

G1-E-G in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The chord written in A, although acceptable from the harmonic point of view, is almost certainly erroneous due to its sonically unjustified piano complication. However, it remains unclear which chord Chopin meant:

  • G1-B1-E-G seems to be most natural: an octave transposition of chords is a popular means of the virtuoso concert texture (cf., e.g. the 3rd mov., bar 69 or 511-513). We would then be dealing with Chopin's typical Terzverschreibung error. This is how it was interpreted in GE2 and we suggest this interpretation as the text of A;
  • G1-E-G – a lighter chord due to a very low register (cf. the 3rd mov., bar 77). In this case it is also a Terzverschreibung error that would have to be taken into consideration: Chopin could have written the correct chord and then consider the bottom note to be a B1 and "correct" the alleged mistake, by adding a note placed a third below (the top bottom note seems to have been added later). Such a scenario assumes, however, that two mistakes were committed: an erroneous evaluation of the pitch of the written note and the fact of leaving it, in spite of the fact it was supposed to be removed (cf. the Etude in G major, Op. 10 No. 5, bars 83-84).

In any case, the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE), probably coming from Chopin, must be considered to be the final decision and this is the version we give in the main text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections

b. 26

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

Long accent in A (probable reading)

2 accents in GE1

Accent in FE (→EE)

2 accents in GE2
..

The accent over the f2 minim visible in A may be interpreted as short or long. Among the remaining versions, the text of GE1 could have come from Chopin; however, an unambiguous, comprehensive reconstruction of the course of possible corrections of first editions does not seem to be possible in this place. Taking into account the fact that each notation emphasises – in one way or another – a syncopated entrance of a new, altered chord, in the main text we leave the undoubtedly authentic notation of A (in the version with a long accent, more likely in this context).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 26

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

 in A

  in GE (→FE→EE)
..

Same as in bar 12, the missing  sign in A is most probably an inaccuracy. The sign was added already in GE (→FE→EE), perhaps at Chopin's request.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE , No pedal release mark