mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

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. 93

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

..

The  overlooked by Chopin in A and restoring f2 was added already in GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 97

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

Slur from 1st quaver in A (literal reading→GE1→FE→EE)

Slur from 2nd quaver in A (possible interpretation) & GE2
..

The starting point of the slur in the L.H. is not entirely clear in A, hence both interpretations – of GE1 (→FE→EE) and GE2 – may be considered justified. In the main text we adopt an interpretation closer to the literal one.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 98

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

No c2 in A & GE2

c2 in GE1

c2 tied in FE (→EE)
..

An additional c2 note could have been added by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE). The melodic line of the accompaniment, where the second quaver of each pair is higher than the previous dyad or chord, suggests that the note was probably to be sustained, which was then performed in the proofreading of FE (→EE). It cannot be excluded that the additional c2 was printed in GE1 by mistake and left unnecessarily after having added the correct note, a1 (a Terzverschreibung error). The tie of this note, added in the proofreading of FE (→EE) and eliminating its repetition, would be then a "simplified correction," which would happen in Chopin's works, e.g. in the Polonaise in C minor, Op. 40 No. 2, bar 125. GE2 restored the version of A.

In the main text we give the version of FE as intended or accepted by Chopin. The version of A may be considered an equal variant, whereas the version of GE1 is almost certainly erroneous. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections

b. 99-100

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

..

In these bars, in the part of the R.H. A has only one  raising d to d – at the beginning of bar 99. The  returning b1 at the beginning of the septuplet in bar 100 is also missing (all previous figures are delayed at the beginning of the group, a suspicion of Chopin's mistake is confirmed by the  written in FED). The editions added both necessary and cautionary signs; superfluous signs were deleted too, yet none of the editions has the completely correct text. In the main text we give all signs necessary for the correct determination of the pitch and two cautionary flats at the beginning of bar 100. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Omission of current key accidentals , Inaccuracies in A

b. 99

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

Long accents in A (→GE1)

Short accents in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

The change of the font of accents is a characteristic inaccuracy of first editions. In this case, it is the correct interpretation of Chopin's intention in GE1 that is more puzzling, since the first two signs in A are clearly longer than the remaining two and one could expect they would have been reproduced as a  hairpin. Cf. bar 100.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions