mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of FE

b. 107

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

No slur in A (→GE)

Slur in FE (→EE), literal reading

Slur in FE (→EE), interpretation suggested by the editors

Our alternative suggestion
..

Same as in analogous bar 105, the slur added by Chopin in the proofreading of FE (→EE) may be interpreted twofold. We also suggest an alternative notation, modelled after the notation of EE in bar 105.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 108-109

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

b2 repeated in A (→GE)

b2 tied in FE (→EE)
..

The tie of b2, added in the proofreading of FE (→EE), most probably by Chopin, is, according to us, a correction of the oversight of A (→GE) and not a change of the performance's concept. See the note on the L.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 109

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

No c1 in chord in A & FE (→EE1)

Chord with c1 in GE & EE2 (→EE3)
..

GE has an additional note, c1, in the crotchet chord. The notation of A may be misleading here, yet Chopin's having deleted the note in the proofreading of FE (→EE1) is decisive. In EE2 (→EE3) the note was added under the influence of GE1.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain notes on ledger lines , Inaccuracies in A

b. 110-111

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

f repeated in A (→GE)

f tied in FE (→EE)
..

The missing tie of f is probably an oversight of Chopin in A (→GE). It is indicated by the tie of this note in an analogous situation in the previous bar and it is confirmed by the Chopin proofreading of FE (→EE). After all, who knows whether the slur led under notes, combining the last chord in bar 110 with the first one in 111, is not an echo of the Chopin proofreading too: Chopin, as was his custom, could have written a short tie next to the target note, whereas the engraver of GE1 interpreted it as a motivic slur (see the note in bars 109-110).  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 110

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

Long accent in A

Short accent in GE1

Short accent in FE (→EE)

Short accent in GE2
..

The long accent over the penultimate semiquaver was erroneously reproduced in GE1 as a short accent under the last note. In FE (→EE) the accent was placed under the 1st note of the last four semiquavers, which may be a result of Chopin's proofreading. In the main text we give the version of A, since it is uncertain whether Chopin actually changed his mind on accents in the ending of this bar; even if it was him that corrected the text of FE in this place, he would be changing the erroneous accent adopted from GE1 and not the text of A. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

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