mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of GE

b. 110-111

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

f repeated in A (→GE)

f tied in FE (→EE)
..

The missing tie of f is probably an oversight of Chopin in A (→GE). It is indicated by the tie of this note in an analogous situation in the previous bar and it is confirmed by the Chopin proofreading of FE (→EE). After all, who knows whether the slur led under notes, combining the last chord in bar 110 with the first one in 111, is not an echo of the Chopin proofreading too: Chopin, as was his custom, could have written a short tie next to the target note, whereas the engraver of GE1 interpreted it as a motivic slur (see the note in bars 109-110).  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 115

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

..

In A there is no accidental before the penultimate semiquaver. The flat returning e2 was added in the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2), perhaps on Chopin's demand. Moreover, a cautionary  was added before e1 in the L.H.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Authentic corrections of GE

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. 120

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

 in A

No ornament in GE (→FE→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

Omission of the  sign in GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2) may be explained by an oversight of the engraver (the sign in A is very small and written carelessly), Chopin's proofreading or its accidental removal while proofreading the slurs, whose traces are most visible in GE1. According to us, the latter is the most likely, yet due to Chopin's potential proofreading, in the main text we suggest a mordent in brackets, which we leave to the discretion of the performer. Cf. bars 109-110.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 127

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

15 notes in A

14 notes in GE (→FE→EE)
..

It is unclear whether the version of the editions, with the run comprising only 14 notes, without e2, should be regarded as an engraver's mistake or Chopin's correction. Unnatural spacing of notes in GE1 could point to a deletion of a note, however there are no visible traces of changes in print like tiny remnants of the original text. We thus adopt into the main text the undoubtedly Chopinesque version of A. Cf. similar problem in the 2nd movement of the Concerto, bar 80.

In all editions except GE2, this 14-notes long group is marked with a 15, left over from the A version.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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