mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 224-225

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

Indications in A

Indications in GE

No indications in FE (→EE1)

Indications in EE2 (→EE3)
..

The change of in tempo to a Tempo in bar 225 in GE is either a routine revision or an inaccuracy. Omission of both indications in FE (→EE1) is undoubtedly an oversight. In EE2 (→EE3) they were added on the basis of comparison with GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 226

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

Long accent on 1st semiquaver in A

Short accent on 2nd semiquaver in GE1 (→FE)

Short accent on 1st semiquaver in EE & GE2
..

Placing the accent over the second of the last group of semiquavers in GE1 (→FE) may be considered a common mistake, if it were not for the fact that putting an accent exactly on f1 emphasises the second motif (in this case g1-f1), repeated then – and accented – in all further appearances of a similar figuration (bars 230, 234, 236, 238 and 240). It would implicate Chopin's proofreading and perhaps even a mistake of the composer in A. However, a mistake of the engraver is supported by lack of traces of removal of the accent and a high likelihood that Chopin cared more for the rhythmic rather than for the melodic motif. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 227-228

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

..

The notation of accidentals in this passage is very inaccurate in A, particularly in the part of the R.H., in which only the 1st half of bar 228 includes all necessary signs. Luckily, it does not impede the correct interpretation of the text. In the editions the signs were gradually added, but only GE2 and EE3 have the fully correct text. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 228

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

Pedalling in A & GE2

Pedalling in GE1 (→FE)

Pedalling in EE
..

The placement of the  signs is not entirely clear in A, which could have caused later inaccuracies in the editions. We assume that they concern the 3rd semiquaver in each half of the bar, which is not contrary to the notation and it is also justified as far as the sound is concerned. Among the first editions, only GE2 has such a pedalling. The version of GE1 (→FE) is inaccurate, whereas the one of EE – arbitrarily changed.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 229

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

No slur in A (→GE→FE)

Slur in EE

Slur suggested by the editors
..

Taking into account the authentic slur in analogous bar 225, one can consider that the missing slur in this bar should be added – this was probably the reasoning of the reviser of EE. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that Chopin consciously resigned from writing separate slurs for the L.H. in similar figurations – cf. the note in bar 227. In the main text we suggest a slur for the L.H. mainly due to a necessary, according to us, addition of the slur in bars 231-232. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions