mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Pitch
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Pitch

b. 78

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

..

In A one can see a pitch correction of the trilled crotchet, from b1 to a1. Such an uncorrected mistake, consisting in writing the upper second, from which in this context the trill starts, of the main note of the trill instead of the main one, happened to Chopin on a number of occasions, e.g. in the Bolero in A minor, Op. 19, bar 187 and in the Sonata in B minor, Op. 35, the 3rd mov., bar 20.    

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A

b. 80

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

8 notes in A (→GE1), interpretation

7 notes in FE (→EE)

8 notes in GE2
..

The eight-note version, written in A (→GE), is, in spite of the mistake in determining the number of notes – see the adjacent note – the most certain both as far as the sources and style are concerned. The seven-note version of FE (→EE) may be a result of Chopin's proofreading, which is indicated by his unquestionable interventions on the 3rd and 4th beat of the bar. However, the latter left visible traces in print, whereas no such traces are to be found in the discussed place. Therefore, we also have to take into consideration a possibility of an erroneously left out c2 in this figure.  

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 80

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

A

GE1

FE (→EE)

GE2
..

On the 3rd beat of the bar GE1 contains up to three errors:

  • incorrect accidentals,
  • no mordent,
  • semiquavers instead of the dotted rhythm at the end of the figure.

Only the first two were corrected in GE2.
In FE (→EE) Chopin corrected the first while in the second part of the group he introduced a different version, which, being the latest, we adopt in the main text.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 80

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

A (→GE) & EE2 (→EE3)

FE (→EE1)
..

In the main text we give the version of FE (→EE1), proofread by Chopin. The version of A (→GE) may be used as a variant for a smaller hand. EE2 (→EE3) introduced the earlier version, most probably on the basis of comparison with GE.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 81

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

8 notes in A

8 notes in GE

9 notes with g2 in FE (→EE), contextual interpretation

9 notes with g2 suggested by the editors

9 notes with e2 – another interpretation of FE (→EE)

Idem, alternative rhythm
..

The roulade ending this bar has two basic versions in the sources:

  • an eight-note one in A (→GE), in which f2 appears directly after d2;
  • a nine-note one in FE (→EE), in which between d2 and f2 there is also g2.

The second was undoubtedly introduced on Chopin's request, however, its notation raises certain doubts – the g2 note added in the proofreading is preceded with a  (cautionary?), being totally unjustified in this context (e.g. both in analogous bars 13 and 32 and in the discussed bar the top most note of this figure, g3, is written without a ). Therefore, one could wonder whether a Terzverschreibung error could have been committed here and whether the intended note could have been an e2, which naturally develops the melodic line of this figure after the e1 semiquaver. We suggest this possibility as an alternative interpretation of the Chopin proofreading of FE.

Differences in the notation of the rhythm of the figure's ending – see the last note in this bar – cause that two slightly differing rhythmic schemes can be ascribed to each of the versions of the roulade discussed above.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE