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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 163

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

e2 tied in A (→GE) & EE

e2 repeated in FE
..

The missing tie of e2 in FE is certainly a mistake, corrected in EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with analogous bars.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 185

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

Crotchet in A

Quavers in GE (→FE→EE)
..

According to us, the version of the editions is a result of an unfinished proofreading of a mistake of GE1: as a result of the slightly inaccurate notation of A, the A-a octave was probably initially placed only on the 3rd quaver in the bar. The mistake was corrected, by adding an octave on the 2nd quaver and a tie of both notes, yet the tie of the bottom note was overlooked. In addition, such a scenario explains well the original reason of the excessive number of accents in this place.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 199-200

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

g1 tied in A

g1 repeated in GE (→FE)

g1 repeated in EE
..

Two curved lines visible in A – the tie of g1 and the phrase mark in bar 200 – were reproduced in GE (→FE→EE) as one phrase mark, running from the 2nd minim in bar 199. The reason for the misunderstanding of the notation of A was most probably the Chopin manner of writing ties: in this case the engraver probably considered the tie to be combining the e1 minim in bar 199 with the g1 crotchet in bar 200. In GE (→FE) the second minim in the R.H. in bar 199 was divided into two voices – a c1-e1 third and b1. This arbitrary change probably stemmed from the inaccurate notation of A too (quite frequent in the case of Chopin) – both top notes of this chord are written without stems.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE

b. 202

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

Quavers in A (contextual interpretation)

Dotted rhythm in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The bottom voice in the R.H. is written in A with a rhythmic error: . We assume that Chopin wrote a dot extending the f1 quaver by mistake ("in a flow" after a few other dotted rhythms in bars 201-202); afterwards, he noticed his mistake and left two quavers, expecting that the poorly visible dot would not mislead the engraver. The quavers correspond to the rhythm in the 1st violin part in Morch and they are compatible with a similar motif two bars earlier. The version of the editions, whose compliance with Chopin's intention cannot be entirely excluded, can be considered an alternative to the interpretation adopted in the main text. 

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A

b. 202

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

Grace note in A (possible reading)

Crotchet in A (probable reading→GE)

Dotted minim in FE

Semibreve in EE
..

In A it is unclear what the rhythmic value of the c2 note is – it can be considered a crotchet or a slashed grace note. We regard the first possibility as the more likely one, since the corresponding note in the oboe and clarinet parts in Morch has the same value. If we were to consider c2 a grace note, it would be difficult to explain why the remaining notes in the R.H. are written as the bottom voice (with stems pointing downwards); moreover, the slash of a grace note is usually led from bottom to top and from top to bottom.
The dotted minim in FE is most probably a result of a revision – the change was performed in the moment when the note was preceded by the erroneous flat, which Chopin would have certainly noticed. In turn, one can imagine a reviser checking the rhythmic correctness of the notation, who would not be considering the sound of the chord.
Another extension of this note in EE is certainly an editorial revision.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A