mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 128-130

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

Slur with tenuto ending in A

2 whole-bar slurs in GE1 (→FE)

Whole- & half-bar slur in EE

Slur in GE2
..

In the main text we give the slur of A, marking the range of the phrase, with a characteristic ending indicating a necessity of an accurate hold of the last long note (slur-tenuto). Two whole-bar slurs of GE (→FE, repeated inaccurately in EE) deprived the Chopin slurring of all nuances. GE2 generally restored the Chopin slur (without the extended "tenuto" ending).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Tenuto slurs

b. 139

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

..

The staccato dot on the 1st quaver in the bar is undoubtedly a mistake of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2) who probably considered its absence to be Chopin's oversight (similarly in the next bar). In A, Chopin marked the portato articulation (dots under the slur) in both bars only from the 2nd note, after the mordent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 139

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

..

In A Chopin overlooked the  restoring a1, which was not noticed in any of the editions. Similarly in analogous bar 287.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , Errors of A

b. 141

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

6 dots in A & GE2

No marks in GE1

2 dots in FE (→EE)
..

All staccato dots in the part of the L.H. were overlooked in GE1. When proofreading FE (→EE), Chopin added signs only next to bass notes, which we consider his final decision. Analogous bar 289, whose regular notation of the part of the R.H. seems to be more mature, includes dots in the L.H. only under E and D.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 142

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

e1 under tied a1 in A & FED (probable reading)

No e1 in GE1 (→FE→EE)

e1 before repeated a1 in FED (possible reading)

e1 inside grupetto in GE2
..

The missing e1 crotchet in the bottom voice in GE1 (→FE→EE) is a patent mistake. One could even assume that the engraver of GE1 omitted this note, since the erroneous layout of the group of small notes would have impeded its reasonable placement: it would either fall over the 4th quaver in the L.H. or in the middle of the grupetto of the top voice in the R.H. (the latter was adopted in GE2, where a crotchet was added without correcting the layout of small quavers).

The poorly legible entry in FED certainly includes the added e1, perhaps also deletion of the tie of the a1 minim. According to us, it may mean returning the version of A with sustained a1 or possibly a version close to the one written by Chopin in the recapitulation, with a gruppetto composed of five notes starting after the e1 crotchet.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Errors in GE , GE revisions