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. 453-454

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

Accent in bar 453 in A

No marks in GE (→FE→EE)

2 accents suggested by the editors
..

The crossings-out and corrections in the part of the L.H. in A make it uncertain whether Chopin wanted to accentuate the minims on the 2nd beat of these bars. An accent is present only in bar 453; moreover, it is placed below a crossed-out minim. However, in analogous bars 461-462, Chopin undoubtedly preserved both accents, in spite of similar corrections. We consider the absence of the mark in bar 454 to be an oversight, hence in the main text we give the version with two accents. The editions did not include the mark in bar 453, which can be regarded as a less likely solution, yet acceptable.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 453

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

..

In the main text we omit the unnecessary in this context cautionary  before e1.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign

b. 453-454

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

Staccato dots in A & GE2

No marks in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The missing staccato dots in GE1 (→FE→EE) are most probably a mistake, just as the seemingly complementary slurring. The dots were restored in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 453

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

f in FE (→EE1)

Octave in GE & EE2 (→EE3)
..

It seems that a comparison with analogous bar 449 would point to the correctness of the version of GE. However, differentiating between those bars is justified due to the manner in which they are combined with the preceding figuration, which is each time different:

  • the top g​​​​​​​1 of the octave in bar 449 continues the line of a1, the penultimate semiquaver in bar 448, whereas the c1 and f1 notes, common for chords of both bars, allow for maintaining the hand position unchanged;
  • in bar 453, the direct continuation of b1 from the previous bar is unnecessary, since it is a common note for chords in those bars; from the pianistic point of view, the single f in bar 453 naturally combines with the previous passage thanks to the preserved position of the 1st finger (it allows for avoiding the impression that both hands move parallelly); respective fingering was added in FEH.

It must be emphasised that the strikes of the octaves in bar 453 are enhanced with accents, appearing only just from the 2nd beat of the bar. Taking into account the above arguments and the fact that the authenticity of the changes performed in GE has not been confirmed, in the main text we give the version of FE (→EE1). An octave at the beginning of the bar was introduced also in EE2 (→EE3), probably on the basis of comparison with GE. For unknown reasons, the added note was printed in smaller font.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 453

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

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

The fingering of FEH could have been indicated during a lesson with Chopin. If this were true, it would be another argument confirming the authenticity (correctness) of the single f​​​​​​​ note at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH