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. 230

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

Long accents in A, contextual interpretation

Short accent in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Short accents in GE2
..

In this bar, it is unclear what kind of accents Chopin meant – in A the first two may be interpreted as long or short, the third one is long and the fourth one is short. A comparison with analogous bars – see bar 226, allows to resolve the doubt in favour of long accents. We discuss the fourth of them separately due to the sign's vague placement.

In GE1 (→FE→EE), the first and third accents were overlooked, which was corrected in GE2. All accents in the editions are short, although the sign in FE could be considered to be long.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 230

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

a in A, literal reading

f in A (contextual interpretation) & GE (→FE→EE)
..

The a note written in A (the 11th semiquaver) is most probably Chopin's mistake (the so-called Terzverschreibung error). The note was corrected to f already in GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2) and it is highly likely that it was performed by Chopin himself.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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

b. 230

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

f in A (→GE) & EE

a in FE
..

One can see Chopin's proofreading in the version of FE, since a as the penultimate note reasonably combines with the 1st chord in the next bar. However, the argument brought forward in the note concerning the previous figure suggests a Terzverschreibung error, which is more likely, according to us. It was considered a mistake already in EE, in which a was changed to f.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 230

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

m.s. over g1 in A & EE

m.s. over 9th semiquaver in GE (→FE)
..

The indication to perform g1 with the L.H. was moved in GE (→FE) to the beginning of 2nd half of the bar. A comparison with analogous bars 226, 234, 236, 238 and 240 proves that it is a mistake. The correct division between the hands was guessed in EE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE

b. 230

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

No mark in A (→GE)

Accent in FE (→EE)
..

The missing accent over g1 in A (→GE) must be considered Chopin's oversight – the accents are present in five remaining similar bars. The composer's distraction could have been caused by corrections in this place. The sign added in FE (→EE) is most probably a result of Chopin's proofreading, although one can ponder why the composer – since he already took care of the accents in this bar – did not complete the remaining deficiencies. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE