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. 287

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

..

FE has an erroneous g as the last quaver in the L.H. In EE the mistake was corrected, most probably on the basis of comparison with analogous bar 139.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 288

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

..

In A (→GE1→FE) there are no accidentals in the last group of semiquavers. In EE the necessary  returning f2 on the last semiquaver was added, whereas in GE2 and EE3 two cautionary flats at the beginning of this group, before b2 and a2 (in the main text we include only the first one).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 288

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

3 slurs in A, probable interpretation

2 slurs in A (possible interpretation) & GE2

1 slur in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Combining the slurs over the rest in bar 288, as it was done in GE1 (→FE→EE), may be considered to be justified in this case – the slurs in A look like an inaccurately written one slur. In GE2 the manuscript was interpreted correctly. In turn, in the very A the slurring of the junction of the bars, which are written on adjacent pages, is unclear. The slur in bar 288 suggests a continuation, which is not excluded at all by the slur in bar 289. However, when discussed separately, the second slur seems to be a typical slur combining a grace note with a semiquaver associated with it, hence we consider such an interpretation to be more likely and we adopt it as the text of A and the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 288

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

..

There is no accidental before the 7th quaver in the sources, which makes us interpret it as f1. The oversight of a  returning f1 is proved by f1 present in the viola part in Morch. In the corresponding bar of the exposition (bar 140), Chopin wrote in the 1st half of the bar c and e1 instead of d and f1, as a result of which a  next to f1 is not necessary there.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A

b. 288

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

..

In FE (→EE1→EE2) there is no  raising a1 to a1 before the 2nd semiquaver. Chopin added a  in FED; the correct text was introduced also in EE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED