mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

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

b. 181

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

Accent in A & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The absence of the accent in the majority of the editions is most probably an oversight of the engraver – in similar motifs (e.g. bars 19-22 or 185) the syncopation is always accented.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 181

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

Octave c3-c4 in A & FE (→EE)

Small-print octave c2-c3 in GE1

Octave c2-c3 in GE2
..

GE1 did not notice the difference in the size of notes between the octaves on the 1st quaver, ending the solo part, and the following them reduction of the orchestral Tutti, this time written correctly (cf. bars 1-22). The mistake was corrected both in FE (→EE) and in GE2. Moreover, loco, ending the octave sign from the previous two bars, was placed too early, so that the 1st octave is written an octave too low. The mistake was corrected only in FE (→EE), certainly as a result of Chopin's intervention.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 181-185

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE
..

Fontana indicated the 4th finger on the 4th b semiquaver three times – in bars 181, 182 and 185. In the same place in bars 181 and 185, in FEH, the 3rd finger was marked (see also notes to bars 536-537 and 540). A possible authenticity of these divergent indications is uncertain. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FEH

b. 181

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

The fact that b is to be held is marked in FE (→GE) through an additional stem and extending dot for the 4th semiquaver. In further bars, Chopin already applies the notation with tie; therefore, in the main text, we adopt this more exact notation also in this case (similarily in bar 537). In EE1 (→EE2), the note was not held, which was corrected in EE3, most probably on the basis of comparison with the respective bar of the recapitulation.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE