mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 71-72

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

Pedalling in A

No markings in GE1 (→FE→EE)

 only in GE2
..

The lack – total or partial – of pedalling markings is undoubtedly a result of an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE) and the reviser of GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 72-73

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

End of slur in A, contextual interpretation

GE (→FE→EE)
..

When interpreted literally, the slur of A ends over the penultimate semiquaver in bar 72. While the very inaccuracy of notation is hardly disputable, it is uncertain where the slur was supposed to reach, according to Chopin's intention. The interpretation of the editions is certainly possible, yet, according to us, embracing the entire first musical thought (to the F1-F octave in bar 73) is more likely, showing the overlapping segments of this introduction to the 1st theme in the solo part better. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 73

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

Long accent in A

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Short accent in GE2
..

The long accent, overlooked in GE1 (→FE→EE), was reproduced in GE2 as short.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 74-75

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

Slur in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

Slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The slurs of A are not entirely clear due to deletions and to the fact that the final version of bar 75 was written on a separate stave. According to us, although the notation includes two separate slurs, the way they overlap clearly indicates an intention of combining them. This is how it was interpreted in GE2 and this could have also been the aim of the engraver of GE1, which, however, remains uncertain due to an inconsistent notation: at the end of the page, in bar 74, the slur suggests a continuation, yet at the beginning of bar 75 there is rather a new slur. In FE (→EE) the doubt was resolved in favour of the separated slurs and this is how we interpret GE1.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 74-75

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

Slur in A, literal reading

Slur in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

Slur to c1 in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The undoubtedly erroneous slur of GE1 (→FE→EE) is a result of coinciding two factors:

  • an unclear ending moment of the slur of A – when interpreted literally, it ends on the g1 quaver or the b1 semiquaver;
  • graphically complicated notation of A, impossible to be literally reproduced in print (a slur between the parts of both hands, written on one stave).

In the main text, we give an interpretation of the notation of A, which we find accurate, adopted in GE2. Cf. bar 75.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions