mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of GE

b. 39

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

Slur from c2 in A & GE2

Slur from d2 in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

It is uncertain whether the earlier beginning of the slur in GE1 (→FE→EE) is a result of Chopin's proofreading (no traces of performed changes suggest that the slur of GE1 was not corrected at all). In spite of this, in the main text we give this version due to a possible Chopin proofreading of the ending of this slur in FE (see the next note), which has to be considered an acceptance of its starting point. The undoubtedly authentic notation of A and GE2 may be regarded as an equal variant. In three out of four appearances of a similar phrase in the solo part (bars 127, 135 and 283), the entire bar is embraced with one slur beginning in the previous bar and ending in the next one, which, according to us, is an argument for adopting a slurring without gaps in the discussed place. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 50

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

..

The  sign, unless it is a result of a misunderstanding, could have been added by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1. One could see here either a suggestion of a slightly changed dynamic concept, where the climax of the crescendo would fall already in the middle of this bar, or an ad hoc attempt to replace the overlooked dashes marking the range of the crescendo. Taking into account the above doubts, in the main text we preserve the notation of A without this sign – see the previous note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 77-78

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

f1 repeated in A

f1 tied in GE (→FE→EE)
..

It is difficult to clearly state how the differences between A and the editions came to exist. Chopin's proofreading cannot be excluded in this place, yet, according to us, an erroneous reproduction of A is much more likely – cf. an analogous phrase in bars 3-4, in which the repetition of f1 is confirmed with an accent and probably also with a corrected slur. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 77-78

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

Slur from bar 77 in A

Slur from bar 78 in GE (→FE→EE)
..

A later beginning of the slur over the final motif of the first phrase of the theme may be a result of Chopin's proofreading – cf. a similar correction of the slur in analogous bars 3-4. However, an inaccuracy is also highly likely: the slur of GE (→FE→EE) starts from the beginning of the bar, which was clearly preferred by the engraver of GE1. See the note below. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 87

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

Grace note f! in A

Grace note g1 in GE (→FE→EE)
..

It is not quite clear whether the change of pitch of the grace note is a result of Chopin's proofreading in GE1 or of the engraver's distraction. In any case, the fingering written in this place by Chopin in FED proves his acceptance of this version. Cf. the adjacent note as well as the 2nd mov., bar 76. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE