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. 290

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

Staccato dot in A, EE & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE)
..

The missing staccato dot over the bass E is certainly a result of an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE). The sign was added in EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with analogous bar 142, whereas in GE2 on the basis of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 290

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

Slur in A

Slur in GE (→FE→EE)

Slur suggested by the editors
..

According to us, while the slurs present in the sources are authentic, both the slur of A, not embracing the 2nd half of the bar, and the whole-bar slur of GE (→FE→EE), added perhaps by Chopin, can be, however, inaccurate. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a slur including the most certain elements of the source versions – the beginning of the slur in A and the ending in the editions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 290-291

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

Beginning of slur in A (contextual interpretation), EE & GE2

Beginning of slur in A (possible interpretation)

Beginning of slur in GE1 (→FE)
..

The beginning of the 2nd slur in this bar is unclear. The slur of A is certainly inaccurate in this respect – we assume that Chopin wanted to embrace the entire group of small notes with it, as in analogous bar 142. GE1 interpreted it in a similar way, yet the inaccurately placed slur included also the e1 crotchet (which was corrected in GE2). FE generally reproduced the version of GE1; however, the different layout of the slurs coinciding on the e1 crotchet contributed to the fact that EE interpreted it already as the beginning of the slur from the 1st small semiquaver.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 290

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

Slur to b3 in A & GE2

Slur to a​3 in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

In GE1 (→FE→EE) the slur was led only to the last semiquaver in the 1st half of the bar, contrary to the clear notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 290

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

Long accent in A

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)

 in GE2
..

The missing accent is certainly a mistake of GE1 (→FE→EE). The engraver might not have been sure to which note the shifted accent applied (it was one of the ways of marking long accents in Chopin's earlier autographs – cf. bar 230).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions