mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 148

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

 in A

 in GE

 in FE

 in EE
..

In the main text we place the  asterisk preserving the visible in A relations between particular elements of notation – , the rest in the L.H. and the roulade in the R.H. In GE (→FE) the sign was printed just after the chord in the L.H., still before the roulade (GE) or at its beginning (FE). It is hard to say whether it is only an inaccuracy or whether it was assumed that if it is to appear before the rest, whose value in the part of the R.H. is filled with small quavers of the roulade, it has to be placed before them. The astonishing compliance between EE and A, to which the English editor did not have access, also requires an explanation. According to us, it is a result of an extremely dense notation – having no possibility of reproducing the notation of FE, since the  sign would fall already over the end of the  sign, the engraver moved it slightly so that taking pedal made sense.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 174

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

..

In A (→GE1→FE) there is no  before F1. The sign was added in EE, whereas in GE2 sharps were added before both notes of the octave.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 176-177

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

Slur to bar 177 in A (contextual interpretation→GE)

Slur in bar 176 in A (literal reading) & FE (→EE)
..

Although the slur in bar 176 is not continued in bar 177 (on a new page of A), the continuation is suggested so clearly that in GE it was led to the first quaver in bar 177. However, this undoubtedly correct version was not reproduced in FE (→EE), which is either a mistake of the engraver of FE or a proof of a correction of the slur in GE1 in the last phase of proofreading.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 185

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

Long accent under L.H. in A

Accents on 2nd & 3rd R.H. quaver in GE1 (→FE)

Accents on 1st & 3rd R.H. quaver in EE

Short L.H. accent in GE2
..

In the main text we give the notation of A, the only authentic according to us. The versions of editions are a sequence of cumulative mistakes, inaccuracies, misinterpretations and arbitrary changes:

  • the most plausible explanation of the additional accent in GE1 is an unfinished proofreading – the erroneously printed accent on the 3rd quaver was left in spite of adding the correct sign on the 2nd quaver (see also the note on rhythm in this place). Moreover, both signs were printed too high, so that they seem to apply rather to the R.H., contrary to Chopin's intention, who wrote the accent in A under the crotchet in the L.H.;
  • in FE both accents already clearly apply to the R.H.; the first one was placed inaccurately, between the 1st and 2nd quavers;
  • EE added its portion of inaccuracies and arbitrary decisions, as a result of which, instead of the long accent on the 2nd quaver in the L.H., as it is in A, the edition gives two vertical accents, over the 1st and 3rd quavers in the R.H.;

GE2 generally restored the notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Partial corrections

b. 203-204

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

No slurs in A & GE2

Slur in GE1

Slur in FE (→EE)

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the slur (slurs?) separating the solo bassoon phrase in A seems to be Chopin's inadvertence. GE1 has a slur in the 2nd half of bar 204, in which one can see the Chopin proofreading. However, certain arguments show that the addition should be subject to caution – it can be an attempt at an interpretation of the tie of e1, which was not printed in GE1 (it was taken so in GE2, by removing the slur in the 2nd half of the bar and adding a tie). In FE (→EE) the beginning of the slur adopted from GE1 was printed a crotchet too early, which, theoretically, could also come from Chopin, particularly that the fragment of the melody embraced with the slur is to be performed by the R.H., and the slur separates this part from the bottom stave in a certain way (the original layout does not suggest such a division between the hands, since the entire phrase is written on the bottom stave). As the authenticity of the version of the editions is uncertain, in the main text we suggest slurs written in the bassoon part in Morch, close to the authentic phrasing of the motif that was used here (e.g. in bars 41-42).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE