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. 220-221

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

Slur in A (contextual interpretation) & FE (→EE)

Slurs in GE1 (interpretation)

Slur in A (possible interpretation) & GE2
..

Bar 220 is the last one on the page in A and there is no slur leading to the next bar. However, the finishing of such a slur is written at the beginning of bar 221. We assume that Chopin meant a slur he put in an analogous situation two bars earlier. The incomplete slur of A was precisely reproduced in GE1, yet a second one was added in bar 220. According to us, it is likely that the addition comes from Chopin and it was aimed at indicating – approximately, in order to avoid corrections of the already printed elements, due to the engraver's convenience – the slur embracing a1-b1-c1. This is how it was understood in FE (→EE), but not in GE2, in which only one slur was left, which can also be considered to be another interpretation of the notation of A.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 220

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

Repeated octave in A

Repeated f in GE

Tied octave in FE (→EE)
..

In A, the slur over the F-f octave has undoubtedly a motivic meaning, same as the slur in the previous bar. With the change of direction of the stems, in GE the slur was moved under the notes and placed in such a way that it became a tie sustaining the bottom note of the octaves, F. The erroneous version was corrected in FE (→EE) – probably by Chopin – to another version, which, being the latest, we adopt to the main text. One can ponder whether Chopin would change it if GE1 would not have distorted the notation of A (apart from the change of the nature of the slur, the  sign was overlooked). Anyway, the version of A, certainly authentic, can be taken into consideration when performing the Concerto.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Placement of markings , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 220

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

 above staff in A

 between staves in GE

No mark in FE (→EE)
..

Same as in the previous bar, the  sign was moved to between the staves and slightly shifted (this time to the right). The absence of the sign in FE (→EE) can be explained by an oversight; however, it cannot be excluded that Chopin removed the hairpin as a part of the proofreading of the part of the L.H. According to us, even if it were Chopin's proofreading, it did not concern the sign written in A, applying only to the part of the R.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 220

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

..

In the main text, we add a cautionary  before C.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 220-225

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No pedalling in FE (→GE,EE)

Pedalling suggested by the editors
..

We consider the missing pedalling in FE (→GE,EE) in bars 220-225 to be an inaccuracy of notation, even though it was probably omitted by Chopin himself. We suggest adding markings patterned after the analogous bars 52-54, 231 and 56-57 (we include markings from bar 231 instead of the most probably inaccurate pedalling of bar 55).

category imprint: Differences between sources