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. 179-180

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

Tie in A, possible reading

Slur in A (probable reading→GE→FE→EE)
..

The slur, written in A at the transition between the bars, is unclear, as far as its range and meaning are concerned. Its length makes it resemble Chopin ties, whereas its shape – phrase marks. Since, when considering the pedalling, sustaining f2 gives the same sound effect as omitting the note, and it may be more difficult to perform, we assume – in accordance with all editions – that Chopin meant a phrase mark.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 179-180

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

..

GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2) overlooked the wavy lines, emphasising the necessity of trilling during the entire value of the note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 180

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

..

In A (→GE1→FE) there are no naturals before the trilled d3 in the R.H. and the topmost note of the 3rd crotchet in the L.H. The sign in the R.H. was added in EE1 (→EE2), whereas GE2 and #GE3 include the fully correct notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Inaccuracies in A

b. 181

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

 from 1st quaver in A (literal reading)

 from 2nd quaver in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

No indication in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

In A  is written in such a way that it is unclear whether it is to be valid from the first or 2nd quaver in the bar. Both versions can be justified, as far as music is concerned:

  • in the orchestra part – Morch –  is certainly valid from the beginning of the bar, hence it seems to be natural that it is to be placed in the same way in A;
  • the first quaver in this bar belongs still to the solo part and it has to be performed  as such; the piano reduction of the orchestra part begins only from the 2nd quaver and  is to be applied from this place.

According to us, the second reasoning is more convincing. The absence of  in GE1 (→FE→EE) is probably an oversight, since the adjacent accent was overlooked too.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 181

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

Accent in A & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The absence of the accent in the majority of the editions is most probably an oversight of the engraver – in similar motifs (e.g. bars 19-22 or 185) the syncopation is always accented.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions