mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : FE revisions

b. 115-116

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

Slurs in A, literal reading

Slurs in A, interpretation suggested by the editors

Slurs in GE1 (contextual interpretation→

FE→EE)

Slur in GE2
..

The slurs in the L.H. (including the tie) are written in these bars either inaccurately or erroneously in the majority of the sources. The variants related to the sustention or repetition of e1 at the transition between bars 115 and 116 are discussed in the adjacent note. As far as the motivic slurs are concerned, the aforementioned inaccuracies mean that each of the four presented versions could be actually considered an interpretation of the notation of A. In the main text, being at the same time the most plausible, according to us, interpretation of Chopin's intentions, we give slurs compliant with the natural fragmentation of motifs, resulting from the course of the harmony and the hand's position.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 135

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

Crotchet b1 in A & GE2

Quaver b1  in GE1

Dotted quaver b1 in FE (→EE)
..

Assigning the b1 crotchet to the top voice, which made a quaver of it, is, according to us, a result of inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 who either did not understand the notation of A or made his work easier. Adding an extending dot next to the note in FE (→EE) may be an ad hoc correction of an alleged oversight of the dot in the version of GE1. Therefore, in the main text we preserve the version of A as the only undoubtedly authentic. Theoretically, both in the case of the change in GE1 and FE, one cannot entirely exclude a possibility of Chopin's proofreading, yet it seems to be highly unlikely that he would like to change such a minor detail of accompaniment – the difference in the sound with a natural harmonic pedalling is practically imperceptible. GE2 returned the version of A. Similarly in an analogous place in the recapitulation, bar 283.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions

b. 167

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

Slurs from 2nd quaver in A (→GE)

Slurs from 1st quaver in FE (→EE)
..

Differently than in analogous bars 161-166 and 168, in GE both slurs begin from the 2nd quaver in the group. It is almost certainly a result of proofreading – probably a Chopin one – since the slurs of A, particularly the second one, are exceptionally inaccurate here. The difference in slurring was not included in FE (→EE), which may be explained by distraction or a unifying revision. It is also possible that the slurs in GE1 were changed in the last phase of proofreading, already after the copies had been sent to Paris.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , FE revisions

b. 202

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

Grace note in A (possible reading)

Crotchet in A (probable reading→GE)

Dotted minim in FE

Semibreve in EE
..

In A it is unclear what the rhythmic value of the c2 note is – it can be considered a crotchet or a slashed grace note. We regard the first possibility as the more likely one, since the corresponding note in the oboe and clarinet parts in Morch has the same value. If we were to consider c2 a grace note, it would be difficult to explain why the remaining notes in the R.H. are written as the bottom voice (with stems pointing downwards); moreover, the slash of a grace note is usually led from bottom to top and from top to bottom.
The dotted minim in FE is most probably a result of a revision – the change was performed in the moment when the note was preceded by the erroneous flat, which Chopin would have certainly noticed. In turn, one can imagine a reviser checking the rhythmic correctness of the notation, who would not be considering the sound of the chord.
Another extension of this note in EE is certainly an editorial revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 203

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

..

FE1 has a  before the topmost note of the chord. This striking mistake was corrected in FE2. According to us, the error could have been caused by both staves being graphically similar in this place – the crotchet in the top voice on the 3rd space and a minim (-s) in the bottom one (the change of the rhythmic value of the topmost note must have been introduced later). In such a situation the flat would be a repetition of the sign written – unnecessarily – before e on the bottom stave.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions