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

b. 24

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

..

In the main text we add cautionary flats before d and d1.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 24

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

2 half-bar slurs in A

4 shorter slurs in #E (→FE→EE)
..

In the main text, we give two half-bar slurs over the notes, written in A. In GE (→FE→EE) each of them was divided into two parts in the places of division of the semiquaver beams of the part of the R.H. It is certainly an arbitrary change performed by the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 24

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

 in A

Shorter  in GE (→FE→EE)
..

Shortening the  sign in order to adjust it to the beam is a typical inaccuracy of the engraver of GE (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 24

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

3 slurs in A

2 slurs in GE1

1 slur in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

The part of the passage performed with the L.H. is provided with three slurs in A, out of which GE1 reproduced only two and FE (→EE) – one. It is hard to assume that Chopin would have commissioned to delete correctly printed slurs: most probably they were overlooked by the engravers. Both overlooked slurs were a part of the indication of the triplets, with the figure 3 related to the slur having also been "lost" in FE (→EE) (the figure 6 on the 2nd beat of the bar was overlooked too). In the main text we reproduce the notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 25

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

E1-G1-E-G in A, literal reading

G1-B1-E-G in A (probable interpretation) & GE2

G1-E-G in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The chord written in A, although acceptable from the harmonic point of view, is almost certainly erroneous due to its sonically unjustified piano complication. However, it remains unclear which chord Chopin meant:

  • G1-B1-E-G seems to be most natural: an octave transposition of chords is a popular means of the virtuoso concert texture (cf., e.g. the 3rd mov., bar 69 or 511-513). We would then be dealing with Chopin's typical Terzverschreibung error. This is how it was interpreted in GE2 and we suggest this interpretation as the text of A;
  • G1-E-G – a lighter chord due to a very low register (cf. the 3rd mov., bar 77). In this case it is also a Terzverschreibung error that would have to be taken into consideration: Chopin could have written the correct chord and then consider the bottom note to be a B1 and "correct" the alleged mistake, by adding a note placed a third below (the top bottom note seems to have been added later). Such a scenario assumes, however, that two mistakes were committed: an erroneous evaluation of the pitch of the written note and the fact of leaving it, in spite of the fact it was supposed to be removed (cf. the Etude in G major, Op. 10 No. 5, bars 83-84).

In any case, the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE), probably coming from Chopin, must be considered to be the final decision and this is the version we give in the main text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections