mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 335-336

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

No slur in A

Tie in GE1 (literal reading→FE→EE)
& GE2

Slur in GE1, contextual interpretation
..

Due to pitch errors both in A and GE2 (in bar 335) as well as in GE1 and in the remaining editions (in bar 336), it is difficult to evaluate the authenticity of the curved line appearing in the editions and to unravel its meaning. It combines notes at the same pitch level – b1 in GE1 (→FE→EE) and c2 in GE2 (literal interpretation) – which confers it the nature of a tie. According to us, the curved line could have been added by Chopin together with the proofreading of the erroneous trilled note in bar 335 or by the engraver of GE1 together with the superfluous change of the crotchet in bar 336. Taking into account that in GE1 these bars are on different pages, it is more likely to relate the curved line to a change performed on the same page, hence in bar 335, particularly since in bar 336 GE1 does not include the ending of this curved line at all. It leads to a version with a slur linking the trilled b1 with the c2 crotchet, to a certain extent analogous to the ending of the exposition (bars 179-180). In face of source and interpretative doubts concerning the curved line, in the main text we leave the version without it, written in A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 335-336

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

No slurs in A & GE2

Slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Four slurs added in GE1 (→FE→EE) almost certainly do not come from Chopin, which is indicated by their string origin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 336

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

c2 in A & GE2

b1 in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

According to us, the version of GE1 (→FE→EE) is a result of a misunderstanding of the sense of the proofreading in the previous bar. The engraver probably considered the c2 crotchet to be related to the trill and constituting its ending. Since in the proofreading a change of the trilled note was marked, he assumed that the crotchet is also to be corrected.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 337

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

 &  in A

No markings in GE1

 in FE (literal reading→EE)

 in FE, contextual interpretation

 in both hands &  in GE2
..

In the main text we give the most accurate indications of A. They were overlooked in GE1, probably due to a faulty layout – the Tutti indication, placed between the staves, impeded fitting the remaining ones. While proofreading FE (→EE), Chopin added  at the beginning of the bar, which is to be considered to be rather an ad hoc supplement of the incomplete notation of GE1. According to us, the indication is valid only from the piano reduction of the orchestral part – FE did not observe the differences in the size of the indications between the solo and orchestral parts, whereas dynamic sings would often be placed clearly before the notes they applied to. The version of GE2 is an arbitrary interpretation of the notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 345

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

Long accent in A & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The accent, most probably overlooked in GE1 (→FE→EE), was restored in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions