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. 202

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

Grace note in A (possible reading)

Crotchet in A (probable reading→GE)

Dotted minim in FE

Semibreve in EE
..

In A it is unclear what the rhythmic value of the c2 note is – it can be considered a crotchet or a slashed grace note. We regard the first possibility as the more likely one, since the corresponding note in the oboe and clarinet parts in Morch has the same value. If we were to consider c2 a grace note, it would be difficult to explain why the remaining notes in the R.H. are written as the bottom voice (with stems pointing downwards); moreover, the slash of a grace note is usually led from bottom to top and from top to bottom.
The dotted minim in FE is most probably a result of a revision – the change was performed in the moment when the note was preceded by the erroneous flat, which Chopin would have certainly noticed. In turn, one can imagine a reviser checking the rhythmic correctness of the notation, who would not be considering the sound of the chord.
Another extension of this note in EE is certainly an editorial revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 203-204

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

No slurs in A & GE2

Slur in GE1

Slur in FE (→EE)

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the slur (slurs?) separating the solo bassoon phrase in A seems to be Chopin's inadvertence. GE1 has a slur in the 2nd half of bar 204, in which one can see the Chopin proofreading. However, certain arguments show that the addition should be subject to caution – it can be an attempt at an interpretation of the tie of e1, which was not printed in GE1 (it was taken so in GE2, by removing the slur in the 2nd half of the bar and adding a tie). In FE (→EE) the beginning of the slur adopted from GE1 was printed a crotchet too early, which, theoretically, could also come from Chopin, particularly that the fragment of the melody embraced with the slur is to be performed by the R.H., and the slur separates this part from the bottom stave in a certain way (the original layout does not suggest such a division between the hands, since the entire phrase is written on the bottom stave). As the authenticity of the version of the editions is uncertain, in the main text we suggest slurs written in the bassoon part in Morch, close to the authentic phrasing of the motif that was used here (e.g. in bars 41-42).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 203

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

..

FE1 has a  before the topmost note of the chord. This striking mistake was corrected in FE2. According to us, the error could have been caused by both staves being graphically similar in this place – the crotchet in the top voice on the 3rd space and a minim (-s) in the bottom one (the change of the rhythmic value of the topmost note must have been introduced later). In such a situation the flat would be a repetition of the sign written – unnecessarily – before e on the bottom stave.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 203

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

..

In the main text we omit the unjustified flats before the e and a crotchets.

 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign

b. 203-204

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

Slur in A, probable interpretation

Possible interpretation of slur in A

Slurs in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The slur in A is written very firmly, yet its endings are not clearly combined with any particular notes, which leaves room for various interpretations, from  to . If the slur had been written before the last crotchet in bar 203 was corrected – the erased crotchet was placed more to the left and had a stem pointing upwards – it was undoubtedly the crotchet that marked its beginning. We assume that it was so, and we interpret the ending of the bar quasi-literally as a slur-tenuto to the end of the bar. We also allow an alternative interpretation of this slur as ending in bar 205.
It seems that GE (→FE→EE) adopted the second of the possibilities illustrated above, writing it, however, in the form of three overlapping slurs – this unnecessarily complicated notation may be explained by the addition of slurs, as a proofreading of the original incomplete notation.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A