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. 272

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

e1 in A, FE (→EE) & GE2

No e1  in GE1

e1 with  suggested by the editors
..

Chopin added the e1 crotchet, overlooked in GE1, in the proofreading of FE (→EE). It was also added in GE2. In the main text we provide it with a cautionary .

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 272

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

Arpeggio sign, grace notes & accent in A & GE2

Grace notes & arpeggio sign in GE1

Arpeggio sign & grace notes in FE

Arpeggio sign & grace notes in EE

Arpeggio sign, grace notes & accent suggested by the editors
..

The arpeggio with grace notes is written in A in a legible manner, offering a clear image of the order in which the particular notes are to be performed – d1-f1-g1-b1-a1. Unfortunately, the notation cannot be reproduced in print without considerably deforming the spaces between the notes, since the printed note heads are much wider than in Chopin's writing. However, the solution adopted in GE1 is misleading – it suggests a g1-b1-d1-f1-a1 order. It provoked Chopin's proofreading in FE (→EE), as a result of which it is much easier to guess the correct performance. We give the latter, more graphically convenient than the version of A, in the main text.

Apart from the proofreading of the ornaments' notation, in FE (→EE) the division into voices of this chord was also changed – f1, which in A (→GE) is a crotchet of the bottom voice, was assigned in FE to the top one, which shortened its value to a quaver. The difference, although subtle, could have been intended by Chopin, hence in the main text we also give this detail in the version of FE. The note, already as a quaver, was then extended in EE by adding a dot. According to us, also this version, although formally not coming from Chopin, can be a notation of his intention, actually the most precise one.

The missing accent in GE1 (→FE→EE) must be an oversight. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 272

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

..

The middle note of the arpeggiated chord, f1, is a crotchet of the bottom voice in A (→GE). In FE it was assigned to the top one, which shortened its value to a quaver – it is probably a result of Chopin's proofreading. In EE, an extending dot was added to the quaver adopted from FE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 272

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

..

In GE1 (→FE→EE) the long accent present in A was overlooked. The accent was restored in GE2 but as a short one.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 272

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

..

In A Chopin wrote in the part of the R.H. the text of the next bar by mistake. Having noticed the error, he crossed out the bar and wrote the correct text on an adjacent stave.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A