mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 316-317

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

No slur in A (→GE1→FE)

Slur A-B in EE & GE2
..

The absence of the slur emphasising the A-B bass step is most probably Chopin's oversight. The slur was added by the revisers of EE and GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 318

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

No slur in A

4-quaver slur in GE1 (→FE→EE)

3-quaver slur in GE2
..

The absence of the last of the three-quaver slurs in the L.H. is almost certainly Chopin's oversight. The slur was added in GE1 (→FE→EE), by embracing the entire 2nd half of the bar with it. According to us, the addition can come from Chopin; however, it was most probably misinterpreted by the engraver. In GE2 the slur was shortened after previous figures, which we give in the main text as probably corresponding to Chopin's intention.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 320

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

Rhythm in A, literal interpretation

Rhythm in A, probable interpretation

Rhythm in A, interpretation suggested by the editors

GE1 (→FE→EE), contextual interpretation, GE2
..

The first note in the top voice in A (→GE1→FE→EE) is an erroneous double dotted quaver. Moreover, the assignment of the middle note in the 1st chord is unclear; e2 – the head, devoid of a stem, could be combined with a2 in the top voice (as in the previous bar) or with d2 in the bottom one (as in analogous bar 170). The editions repeated the layout of the previous bar, at the same time assimilating the value of e2 with a2. The editors of mUltimate Chopin are inclined to the second possibility, suggesting in the main text a solution fully analogous with the version from the exposition.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 322-324

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

..

Three flats before g notes visible in A, written later with a foreign hand, were not included in GE1. The same applies to the cautionary  before G at the beginning of bar 324. The natural harmonic context allows to guess the correct text even without these signs; however, all doubts are dissipated by the Chopin proofreading of FE (→EE), in which all necessary flats in bar 322 were added as well as a cautionary  before A at the end of bar 323 and E at the end of bar 324. GE2 included the signs added in A, adding also a fourth one, a necessary  in bar 322 (before the penultimate semiquaver).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 325-327

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

Slur in A, literal reading

Slur in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

No slur in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

In A bar 325 is the last one on the page. The slur in the L.H. clearly suggests a continuation (similarly as the slur in the R.H.), which, however, is absent on a new page (in bar 326). In GE1 (→FE→EE) the slur was completely overlooked, whereas in GE2 the slur of A together with the overlooked ending was restored. Since this is how Chopin's intention undoubtedly looked like, in this case in the main text we include the slur of GE2.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions