mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 133

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

Long accent on d2 in A

Short accent on d2 in GE

Short accent on a1 in FE

Vertical accent on a1 in EE
..

Differences in the placement of accents perhaps result from an ambiguous rhythmic notation, adopted from A – the engraver of FE, seeing an accent over the d2 minim, which, although placed over the d1 crotchet, is to be performed together with a1, placed the accent in the place of its validity (at the beginning of the bar). At the same time, he did not take into account the fact that having moved the sign over another note in fact changed its meaning, since in the quasi-polyphonic texture the sign generally concerns only one of the voices. In the main text we give the version of A.   

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE

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

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

b. 139

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

No indication in A (→GE) & EE

sempre legato in FE
..

Chopin added sempre legato in the proofreading of FE, probably considering the accompaniment in this and two subsequent bars, devoid of slurs, requiring more precise articulation – in an analogous place in the recapitulation the L.H. is provided with slurs. In EE, in which the slurs were added here, sempre legato was omitted, which can be regarded as a rational solution, compliant with economy of indications, generally characteristic for the Chopin notation. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Legato & slurs