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

b. 118

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

Continuous slur in A

Slurs separated in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In this case, the change of slurring introduced in GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2) may come from Chopin. It is indicated by:

  • intense corrections of slurs in GE1 in the next line (bars 119-121);
  • an atypical to the manner of the engraver of GE1 place of division of the slur (not on a bar line or in the middle of a bar);
  • a correction visible in A at the beginning of bar 117 – the slur from the preceding bar originally reached the e1 semiquaver. It suggests that Chopin considered beginning a new slur from the 2nd crotchet in the bar (together with a new chord in the L.H.), hence exactly as we see it in GE1 in bar 118.

On the other hand, the clear and uncorrected mistakes in reproducing slurs in bars 115-117, preceding this place, dictate caution in the assessment of the slurring of GE1. Due to this reason, in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic slur of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 118

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

Fingering written into FED

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 119-122

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

..

The interpretation of the slurring of A in these bars, supported by the rhythmic notation (separated semiquavers in bar 120 and minims in bars 121-122), is beyond any doubt. However, at an attempt to interpret the slurs literally, they can seem to be misleading – both separated semiquavers in bar 120 seem to be at the same time the last and first notes of subsequent slurs; the phenomenon is even clearer in bars 121-122. Admittedly, in GE1 the slurs were reproduced correctly, in accordance with the musical sense, yet it is already a result of an intense proofreading – in the entire line of GE1, spanning bars 119-121, one can see traces of correction of slurs, probably more than once (in bar 120 traces indicate deletion of two slurs of a different, yet partially overlapping range). Two phases of proofreading, out of which the first did not yield satisfactory results, may suggest that Chopin, having seen a great number of errors, ordered to perform the proofreading after A in the first phase and it was only in the second phase that he personally marked the still remaining, substantial inaccuracies.
The traces were most probably one of the reasons one decided to engrave again the entire bottom part of the page (more than a half) when preparing GE1a. The makeover spanned bars 119-127 and the bottom most elements in bars 116-118, e.g. the tie of e in bars 117-118. In spite of a significant volume of work, no mistakes were committed, which would happen in other similar cases – see the characterization of GE1.  

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1

b. 119-120

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

f in sources, literal reading

f, contextual interpretation suggested by the editors
..

There is no accidental before the 4th semiquaver in the 2nd half of bar 119, which means that it should be read as f3. Similarly, in the next bar a corresponding note, when interpreted literally, is an f2. What is more, in FED Chopin added fingering over the discussed note and did not question its sound. In spite of this, an oversight of naturals returning f3(2) seems to be highly likely: 

  • the preceding f is included in the fragment of a chromatic scale and most probably both Chopin and the pupil considered them not as a separate alteration, but as a part of the chromatic sequence from f to c.
  • reaching the discussed notes, both Chopin writing A and the pupil performing at the lesson were already most probably thinking about the last crotchet in the bar with its clearly diminished four-note chord, including an f, and not an f.

Taking into account the above, in the main text we add naturals before those notes.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A

b. 119

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

Fingering written into FED

No teaching fingering
..

The fingering was most probably written by Chopin and wrote in bold by his pupil and at the same time the owner of the copy, Miss O'Meara (then Dubois).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED