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. 202

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

Quavers in A (contextual interpretation)

Dotted rhythm in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The bottom voice in the R.H. is written in A with a rhythmic error: . We assume that Chopin wrote a dot extending the f1 quaver by mistake ("in a flow" after a few other dotted rhythms in bars 201-202); afterwards, he noticed his mistake and left two quavers, expecting that the poorly visible dot would not mislead the engraver. The quavers correspond to the rhythm in the 1st violin part in Morch and they are compatible with a similar motif two bars earlier. The version of the editions, whose compliance with Chopin's intention cannot be entirely excluded, can be considered an alternative to the interpretation adopted in the main text. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A

b. 202-203

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

No slur in A

Slur in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The slur appearing in the editions is most probably a result of misunderstanding of A by the engraver of GE1 – he took the bottom part of the 'g' letter from the instrument indication (Fag) for a slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 202

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

Grace note in A (possible reading)

Crotchet in A (probable reading→GE)

Dotted minim in FE

Semibreve in EE
..

In A it is unclear what the rhythmic value of the c2 note is – it can be considered a crotchet or a slashed grace note. We regard the first possibility as the more likely one, since the corresponding note in the oboe and clarinet parts in Morch has the same value. If we were to consider c2 a grace note, it would be difficult to explain why the remaining notes in the R.H. are written as the bottom voice (with stems pointing downwards); moreover, the slash of a grace note is usually led from bottom to top and from top to bottom.
The dotted minim in FE is most probably a result of a revision – the change was performed in the moment when the note was preceded by the erroneous flat, which Chopin would have certainly noticed. In turn, one can imagine a reviser checking the rhythmic correctness of the notation, who would not be considering the sound of the chord.
Another extension of this note in EE is certainly an editorial revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 202

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

Tied f1 in FE (probable interpretation→GE)

Tied c1 in EE
..

The tie between the minim and the crotchet is placed in FE (→GE1→GE2) at the pitch of d1, so it may apply both to c1 and f1. Both versions are possible; however, in the main text, we choose it to be a tie of f1 due to a rhythmic analogy with bar 198 – playing the bass note on the 3rd beat of the bar.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 202

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

No rest in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Rest in GE3
..

In GE3, a crotchet rest was added over the chord in the L.H. on the 3rd beat. However, according to us, analogy with bar 198, which was probably taken into account, is only approximate and does not justify this addition, since a can be considered to be a continuation of the top voice.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions