mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of GE

b. 378

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

No slur in A

Slur in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In the main text we leave the notation of A, without the slur in the L.H. The slur of GE (→FE→EE), perhaps added by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1 and compliant with the authentic slur in analogous bar 34, can also be considered to be compatible with Chopin's intention.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 384-385

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

Slurs in A

Slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the slurs of A, which do not raise any doubts concerning both the sources and music. However, the version of GE may be considered at least to be equal:

  • an inaccuracy consisting in engraving a slur incompatible with the division into bars or groups is something practically unusual in GE1, which, in spite of the lack of visible traces of corrections, makes Chopin's proofreading highly likely. The proofreading of the slurs can also be indicated by the slurring of FE (→EE), perhaps reproducing the state of GE1 from before the last phase of proofreading;
  • Chopin wrote such a system of slurs in analogous bars 40-41.

The arguments for the adoption of the notation of A are as follows:

  • a legible, unequivocal notation;
  • no dynamic markings in these bars, emphasising the beginning of the ascending passage – cf.   in bars 40-41. A shorter slur of A suggests that a new thought begins in bar 385, which compensates this deficiency to a certain extent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 387-388

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

Slur in A (→GE)

2 slurs in FE (→EE)
..

It is difficult to say whether the division of the slur in FE (→EE) is a consequence of a mistake of the engraver of FE or whether the slurs were corrected in GE1 in the last phase of proofreading, already after having sent the copies to Paris. In the main text we give the only authentic version of A (→GE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 392

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

Sixth in A & GE2

a2 alone in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

The absence of the bottom note in GE1 (→FE→EE) may be considered an oversight of the engraver of Chopin's proofreading – in similar bar 48, there is a sole a2 as the grace note.
In GE1, the head of the grace note is placed at the right pitch, but the ledger line was overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 395-398

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

Slur in A

Slur suggested by the editors

Slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)

Our alternative suggestion
..

According to us, the slur of A ending in bar 396 is inaccurate – see bars 52-53 – hence in the main text we lead it to the beginning of the next bar, in accordance with the slurs of flute I and clarinet in Morch. The authenticity of the slur added in GE (→FE→EE) in bars 397-398 is also questionable – its beginning is contrary to the phrasing that naturally follows from the instrumentation. Therefore, we do not include this slur in the main text. However, taking into account a possibility of a Chopinesque proofreading of GE1 in this place, we suggest a slur started a crotchet later as an alternative solution – the Chopinesque entry could have been misinterpreted by the engraver.
The delayed beginning of the first slur is most probably an inaccuracy of FE (→EE). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE