Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

GE1 encompassed the Concerto in a version for solo piano and orchestral parts sold optionally. The present characterization, as well as all the detailed notes, pertain, with only few exceptions, to the version for one piano, consisting of the solo piano part and the authentic piano reductions of the orchestra sections (Tutti).

GE1 is based on A, as evidenced by:

• the concurrence of the texts of both sources (more serious doubts are produced only by the slurring, discussed below);
• the storage of ½A in the Breitkopf & Härtel archives;
• a dozen or so signs visible in A possibly added by the engraver of this edition, and corresponding to the endings of the pages of the piano part in GE1;
• tens of places in which the concurrent text of the editions is a modification of the script of A (primarily the supplementation of the missing accidentals); traces of an introduction of those changes can be perceived in GE1, whereas they are absent in the remaining editions (e.g. in bar 103 or 172).

The piano part in GE1 bears traces of detailed proofreading. However, only some of the introduced alterations can be unreservedly ascribed to Chopin (e.g. in bars 109-110, 157, 224), and the majority are probably the work of a reviser. The proofreading probably consisted of at least two phases with the last occuring already after a copy serving as Stichvorlage for FE1 was sent to Paris (e.g. in bars 169-170). Some distinct flaws remained uncorrected, including:

• the use of normal-size notes to print the first Tutti;
• d instead of c in the two last chords in bar 29;
• the oversight of the grace note E in bar 46;
• the omission of the pedalling in bars 71-72 and 179;
• c-e instead of e-g in bar 84;
• the omission of the tie to c¹ in bars 106-107;
•  instead of  in bar 121 and 283;
• the omission of the crotchet e¹ in bar 142;
• the omission of c¹ in chord in bar 174;
• a mistaken range of the 8^va sign in bar 181, 211 and 249;
• c² instead of b¹ in bar 187;
• no clef changes in the part of the L.H. in bars 299-300.

Separate discussion is due to the slurring which in GE1 differs greatly from the slurring in A. A precise analysis, especially of the state prior to the proofreading which can be recreated upon the basis of the visible traces of changes on the plates (more than a hundred in the entire Concerto), leads to the following conclusions:

• unfamiliar with Chopin’s manner of writing the slurs (which in the composer’s autographs mostly encompass, contrary to the universally accepted convention, the first and the last note, as in our edition), the engraver of GE1 frequently did not understand their meaning and was unable to properly place the beginnings and endings of the slurs;
• many inaccurately placed slurs (both horizontally and vertically), e.g. the majority of the slurs on p. 4, encompassing bars 31-62 (cf. e.g. the slur in bars 38-39 or 41-42), suggest a careless work, probably performed in haste; 
• the slurring printed originally in GE1 frequently corresponds to the habits of the engraver or reviser rather than recreates the notation in A (some features of those unauthentic slurs suggest bowing-related thinking – cf. e.g. bars 335-336). The most frequent alterations include: adapting the slurs to the metric structures, especially half-bars and whole bars (e.g. in bars 31-34, 191-194), the avoidance of excessively long slurs (e.g. in bar 225 or 227-228), the addition of slurs in adjoining or analogous figures, e.g. in the second hand – cf. bar 226 or 267;
• the proofreading, certainly made upon the initiative of Chopin and partially under his control, as a rule restored the slurring from A; a considerable number of alterations, however, remained uncorrected. It creates an utmost uncomfortable situation for us, since in many cases it is impossible to decide whether a given change, particularly in the case of additions of slurs, comes from Chopin or not. Examples of this kind of dubious changes: bars 77-78, 103-104, 118, 201-202, 284, 289, 290, 300, 345-346.

The inaccuracies of GE1 do not concern slurs only – the aforementioned adjustment to metric structures includes also dynamic hairpins, as e.g.  in bar 140, and even staccato signs (additions in bar 139 and 140). In these cases, the evaluation of authenticity of the changes is also very difficult, yet the examples brought by us are clearly erroneous. Generally, wavy lines after the  sign were omitted, e.g. in bars 179-180.

Other most significant changes of uncertain authenticity appearing in GE1:

• change of the grace note beginning the trill in bar 87 from f¹ to g¹,
• addition of c² in bar 98,
• change of  to cresc. in bar 146,
• addition of an accent in bar 219,
• replacement of the single note with an octave in bar 280,
• removal of c¹ from the chord in bar 283,
• removal of c² at the beginning of bar 290,
• change of the long accent to a  hairpin in bar 300,
• change of c² to b¹ in bar 336.

There are copies of GE1 with an earlier variant of the cover, with no mention of the cooperating firms in Saint Petersburg and Warsaw.