mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 115-116

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

e1 tied in A (→GE)

e1 repeated in FE (→EE)
..

Reproducing the tie of e1 as a motivic slur of e1-c1 is undoubtedly a mistake of the engraver of FE (→EE). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 135

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

Long accent between in A

Short L.H. accent in GE

No mark in FE (→EE)

Long R.H. accent suggested by the editors
..

The long accent in A is written in the middle between the staves, so it is unknown to which hand it should be assigned. A comparison with analogous bar 283 proves that Chopin most probably meant accenting the R.H. In GE it was assigned to the L.H. (as a short accent) and in FE (→EE) it was overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 138

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

f2 in A (→GE) & EE2 (→EE3)

f2 in FE (→EE1)
..

The version of FE (→EE1) is almost certainly a result of an oversight of the engraver, although the lack of Chopin's intervention both in the subsequent proofreading of FE and  the pupils' copies is surprising. According to us, in the case of the proofreading of FE1, three changes in the 2nd half of the bar could have distracted Chopin to such an extent that, occupied with developing the details of the notation, he did not notice striking mistakes both at the beginning of the bar and in the next one, while the proofreading of FE2 was only of a random nature. Out of three pupils' copies, only FED bears traces of the 1st movement of the Concerto having been worked on with Chopin, so the lack of corrections is nothing particular, especially that also there Chopin took care of correcting mistakes in immediate vicinity (in bar 139).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 139

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

7 notes & b1 in A (→GE) & FED

8 notes & b1 in FE (→EE1)

8 notes & b1 in EE2 (→EE3)
..

In FE (→EE) the a1 quaver was doubled, as a result of which the entire group includes 8 notes. In the 1st half of the bar, FE committed two evident mistakes more: the mordent was overlooked as well as the  raising the second b1 to b1 (see also notes in the 2nd half of the bar). In FED Chopin corrected two mistakes: he deleted the superfluous a1 and added the missing . The accumulation of mistakes of FE in this bar must be surprising, particularly if we take into account Chopin's proofreading both in FE1 and FE2 (cf. bar 138). It is also puzzling why, in spite of revisions performed in subsequent impressions of EE (even in this bar), no attempt at indicating the actual number of notes in the group was made, not to mention introducing the correct version of GE1, which was taken into consideration already at the time of revising EE2. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 139

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

..

FE (→EE1) overlooked the  raising b1 to b1. Chopin corrected this mistake in FED. A natural was added also in EE2 (→EE3), probably on the basis of comparison with GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED