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. 137

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

Long accents in A

Short accents in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In spite of the difference in the size, we consider both accents of A in this bar to be long – cf. a similar situation in the following bar, 138.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 137-138

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

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before e2 in bar 137 and a  before G in bar 138. The first was added already in EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

b. 138

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

e2 repeated in A (→GE)

e2 tied in FE (→EE)
..

The tie of e2 was added by Chopin in the proofreading of FE (→EE) as one of the three additions in the 2nd half of the bar (cf. notes on pedalling and sempre legato). It is a characteristic Chopin pianistic procedure, ensuring strict legato of a melody led in chords (cf. e.g. the Polonaise in Amajor, Op. 53, bar 97). We suggest this change also in bar 286.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

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. 138-140

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

No slurs in A (→GE→FE)

5 slurs in EE
..

Adding slurs in the L.H., modelled after the recapitulation (bars 286-288), is a deliberate revision of EE, in which sempre legato, added in FE, was omitted at the same time – see the adjacent note. The English editor would arbitrarily add slurs also in other pieces by Chopin, e.g. in the Nocturne in Dmajor, Op. 27 No. 2, bars 2-6.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions