mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

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. 268-269

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

Slur in A

Slurs in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The change of the continuous slur of A to overlapping slurs in the editions may be, according to us, a result of the proofreading of the original inaccurate slurring of GE1 – Chopin could have e.g. added the first slur, if initially only the second had been printed. In such a situation, the slurs of GE (→FE→EE) could be regarded as an equal variant of notation. However, in the main text we leave the undoubtedly authentic version of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 269-271

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

No slur in A

Slur in bar 269 in GE (→FE)

2 slurs in EE

Slur in bars 269-271 suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the slur in the L.H. in A must be considered an inaccuracy of notation. Chopin may have wanted to add a slur in GE1, but only a fragment of it was printed in bar 269 – the slur suggests a continuation, yet in bar 270, on a new line, there is no continuation. Both in FE (→EE) and GE2 the slur was interpreted as embracing only three crotchets in bar 269. Moreover, EE added also an arbitrary slur from the last crotchet in bar 270 to the third third in bar 271. In the main text we suggest a slur analogous to bars 1-3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 271-272

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

Slur in A

Slurs in GE1

Slurs in FE

Slurs in EE

Slurs in GE2
..

Over the part of the R.H. (in some editions under), apart from the top, several-bar-long slur, the sources include one or two additional slurs of varied range. According to us, it is most probably only the slur of A that is authentic, hence we give it in the main text. The absence of visible traces of corrections of slurs in GE1 makes a possible Chopin proofreading highly unlikely, whereas the subsequent minor changes of the range of the first slur, of inaccurate (FE) or revisional (EE and GE2) nature and actually without impact on the performance, cannot be authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 271

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

Accent in A & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The missing accent is a patent oversight of GE1 (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 271

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

 in A

No sign in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The  hairpin is poorly visible in A from under the poco ritenuto indication. The engraver of GE1 (as well as the reviser of GE2) could have not noticed it or even considered that the indication had been written with an intention to replace (cross out) the  sign.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE