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. 337

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

Fifth in A, GE2 & EE3

Only f in GE1 (→FE→EE1→EE2)
..

The omission of c1 in the 1st crotchet in the L.H. is most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE1→EE2). The mistake was noticed by the revisers of GE2 and EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 337-340

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

8– – ¬ to bar 340 in A (→GE1), contextual interpretation & in EE2

No 8– – ¬ in FE (→EE1), GE2 & EE3

8– – ¬ over octave in bar 337, suggested by the editors
..

According to us, Chopin did not want these bars to differ from analogous bars 13-16, although there is no corresponding version in any of the sources. The first cause of such a state of affairs was a possible mistake committed by Chopin in A – an unnecessary extension of the line determining the range of the octave sign beyond the 2nd crotchet in bar 337. However, the correction of this error in FE (→EE1) – elimination of the entire octave sign – also removed the characteristic leap to the f3-f4 octave, which, due to its important role in the entire 3rd mov. of the Concerto, could not possibly be intended by Chopin. Therefore, the version of FE is most probably not entirely correct. The situation is even more obscure due to minor, obvious mistakes, e.g. no ending of the octave sign in bar 340 in A (assuming its correctness) and embracing the 1st crotchet in bar 337 in GE1 with the octave sign. In later editions, one of the previous versions was introduced arbitrarily, which does not influence the determination of the text in any way.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 337

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

 &  in A

No markings in GE1

 in FE (literal reading→EE)

 in FE, contextual interpretation

 in both hands &  in GE2
..

In the main text we give the most accurate indications of A. They were overlooked in GE1, probably due to a faulty layout – the Tutti indication, placed between the staves, impeded fitting the remaining ones. While proofreading FE (→EE), Chopin added  at the beginning of the bar, which is to be considered to be rather an ad hoc supplement of the incomplete notation of GE1. According to us, the indication is valid only from the piano reduction of the orchestral part – FE did not observe the differences in the size of the indications between the solo and orchestral parts, whereas dynamic sings would often be placed clearly before the notes they applied to. The version of GE2 is an arbitrary interpretation of the notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 337

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

2 long accents in A

Short accent on 6th quaver of bar in GE

Long accent on 5th quaver in FE

Short accent on 5th quaver in EE
..

The first out of two long accents, written in this bar in A, was overlooked in the editions, probably due to lack of space resulting from the placement of the Tutti indication between the staves in GE1. The second, excluding accidental changes of long accents to short ones and vice versa, was placed in GE (→FE→EE) in the middle between the staves (and not directly over the crotchet in the L.H.) and in FE (→EE), in addition, it was erroneously moved a quaver earlier.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE

b. 337

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

No slur in FE (→GE)

Slur in EE
..

The slur in EE was most probably added by analogy with the authentic slurs in bars 45 and 47.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions