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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 93

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

..

In the 2nd half of the bar, we leave the rhythmic notation of the sources, in which the roulade is written with semiquavers (except for the last note). This type of notation, certainly including a suggestion of performing it poco ritenuto, was used by Chopin on a number of occasions, cf. 2nd mov., bar 41 as well as e.g. the Prelude in D major, Op. 28 No. 15, bars 4 and 79. However, in this case it is uncertain whether the notation is not only an unintentional result of extending the 2nd half of the roulade – see the note above.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

b. 98

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

Crotchet d3 in A

Quaver d3 in GE (→FE→EE)

Wedge in FED

Dot suggested by the editors
..

The change of the rhythmic value of d3 from a crotchet to a quaver could be considered an inaccuracy of GE (→FE→EE), if it was not for the fact that it harmonises with the change of phrasing, which is proved by corrections of slurs in A. Therefore, Chopin probably changed the slurs in A and left the crotchet by inadvertence (perhaps he planned to maintain the two-voice notation, but he forgot to add a quaver flag). The fact that the rest concerns not only the bottom voice in A but the entire rhythmic sequence was confirmed by the sign written in FED, separating g2-d3 from the f2 semiquaver. In this situation, the purposeful character of the change of the rhythmic notation in GE seems to be very likely and this is the version we adopt in the main text.

In FED, except for the aforementioned separating sign, there is another one, over the discussed g2-d3 fifth, most probably designating staccato. Whether it is a wedge or a carelessly written dot, it is hard to say. In the main text we include this teaching instruction in the form of a dot in brackets.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 98

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

Quavers in A & EE1

Crotchets a & f1 in GE (→FE) & EE2 (→EE3)

4 crotchets alternatively suggested by the editors
..

The stems extending a and f1 on the 1st and 4th crotchets in the bar were added in the proofreading of GE (→FE), most probably by Chopin, since there is no reason to make a mistake. As one cannot exclude that the proofreading was implemented inaccurately, we alternatively suggest extending also the two remaining bass notes.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 106-107

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

c1 tied in A & FE (→EE)

c1 repeated in GE
..

The visible in A, characteristic Chopin tie of c1 was overlooked in GE – the engraver may have considered it an extension of the motivic slur. Chopin corrected the mistake when proofreading FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 107

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

..

In A (→GE1→FE) the dot extending the value of the crotchet was inadvertently written next to f1. The mistake was corrected in EE and GE2. The traces of erasures visible in A suggest that Chopin first inadvertently wrote dots next to both notes and then he mistook them again, deleting the one that should have stayed.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A