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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 23-25

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

2 staccato dots in A

No marks in GE1 (→FE→EE)

1 dot in GE2

3 dots suggested by the editors
..

The staccato dots, written in A over the initial chords in bars 24-25, suggest a possible oversight of the sign in analogous bar 23. GE2 included only the dot in bar 24, probably due to the clear staccato sign over the octave in the L.H. The missing dots in the remaining editions are most probably a result of carelessness of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 24

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

Staccato mark in A & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The missing staccato sign is certainly a result of inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1. In the sign written in A one could also see a wedge; however, we assume – as it was done in GE2 – that Chopin meant the same sign in both hands (the dot in the R.H. is beyond any doubt). 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges

b. 26

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

Long accent in A (probable reading)

2 accents in GE1

Accent in FE (→EE)

2 accents in GE2
..

The accent over the f2 minim visible in A may be interpreted as short or long. Among the remaining versions, the text of GE1 could have come from Chopin; however, an unambiguous, comprehensive reconstruction of the course of possible corrections of first editions does not seem to be possible in this place. Taking into account the fact that each notation emphasises – in one way or another – a syncopated entrance of a new, altered chord, in the main text we leave the undoubtedly authentic notation of A (in the version with a long accent, more likely in this context).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 29

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

 for 3 quavers in A

 for 4 quavers in GE1

 for 6 quavers in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

We reproduce the moment of the beginning of the  hairpin in the main text on the basis of A. In GE1 it was moved a quaver earlier (adjusted to a half of the bar); however, due to a clumsy layout of the text, the sign seems to be reaching until the e2 minim and it was interpreted so both in FE (→EE) and GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 32

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

Long accent on 2nd crotchet in A

Long accent on 1st crotchet in GE (→FE)

Short accent on 1st crotchet in EE
..

In spite of writing the bottom arm with great flourish, the sign in A is undoubtedly a long accent on the 2nd crotchet in the bar. The visible accents on the 1st crotchet in the editions are a result of misunderstanding the notation of A. Similarly in bar 34.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE