mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 109-110

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

Long accents in A (→GE→FE)

Short accents in EE
..

The long accents over the syncopated chords in the L.H. were reproduced quite accurately in the editions, except for EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies

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

b. 125-126

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

2 long accents in EE & GE2

Short & long accents in EE

2 short accents in GE2
..

The accents in A are clearly long and this is how they were reproduced in GE1 (→FE). The engraver of EE, who, as it seems, considered long accents to be diminuendo signs, shortened the first one, most probably being convinced that it is an accent. In GE2 a similar operation was performed on both signs.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 130

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

Long R.H. accent in A (literal reading→GE→FE)

R.H. short accent in EE

L.H. long accent in A, interpretation suggested by the editors
..

The interpretation of the long accent written in A presents difficulties: the sign is written in such a way that it can refer either to the minim in the R.H. or to f1 in the L.H. (a similar problem appears in the recapitulation, bar 278). According to us, it is more likely that Chopin wanted to draw attention to the chromatic transition of the tenor voice: f1-f1-[e1]. Shortening the accent in EE is a typical inaccuracy of this edition.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 133

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

Long accent on d2 in A

Short accent on d2 in GE

Short accent on a1 in FE

Vertical accent on a1 in EE
..

Differences in the placement of accents perhaps result from an ambiguous rhythmic notation, adopted from A – the engraver of FE, seeing an accent over the d2 minim, which, although placed over the d1 crotchet, is to be performed together with a1, placed the accent in the place of its validity (at the beginning of the bar). At the same time, he did not take into account the fact that having moved the sign over another note in fact changed its meaning, since in the quasi-polyphonic texture the sign generally concerns only one of the voices. In the main text we give the version of A.   

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE