mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in FES

b. 53-63

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

Accompaniment in FES, interpretation

Version of remaining sources
..

Harmonic accompaniment written into FES – see bars 45-52.

After selecting this version, it may be necessary to choose relevant versions also in bar 53 (slurs and accents), 53-54 (staccato signs), 54, 56-57, 57-61, 62 and 63 (slurs).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 59-62

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

..

In FES, Chopin sketchily marked changes in the pairs of chords forming cues of the orchestral part at the transition of bars 59-60 and 61-62. In the first pair, he changed the bottom note of the R.H. chord in bar 59 from d2 to b1; necessity of omitting the octaves of the L.H. results directly from assigning to the left hand the harmonic triplet figuration. In bars 61-62 the marking is even less clear – only at the beginning of bar 62 a crotchet stem is added, indicating the addition of the note d2 to the R.H. sixth f2-d3; analogous complement (note e2) to the R.H. crotchet should undoubtedly also be applied to the previous chord in bar 61. As in the previous pair, the lower notes of both chords (a1 and d1) should also be omitted.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 64-72

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

Accompaniment in FES, interpretation

FES version with change suggested by the editors

Version of remaining sources
..

It is puzzling that the changes of the bass note at the end of bar 64 and in the 1st half of bar 65, written in Morch and other sources of the orchestral part, were not considered in the harmonic accompaniment added in FES (see bars 45-52). According to us, it can be a result of inadvertence, hence we suggest a corresponding hypothesis in this place. 
The doubt about the rhythm's interpretation – see bar 69. 

After choosing the version with accompaniment, it may be necessary to select corresponding versions also in bar 65 (d-d) and 69 (g-g), 65 (staccato signs), 67 (tie of e2) and in notes on slurs in bars 64, 64-65, 65-68 and 66-69.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 69

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

Semiquavers in FES (literal reading)

Quaver triplet in FES (possible interpretation)
..

On the 2nd beat of the bar FES has a quaver and two semiquavers in the added accompaniment. Due to the hasty and partially sketchy notation, it is uncertain whether the line in the place of the semiquaver beam is to be interpreted as an actual beam.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 77

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

g in A

B-g in GE (→FE→EE)

B in FES
..

The version of A is, according to us, the only authentic text of this place. The sixth in GE (→FE→EE) is almost certainly a result of a misinterpretation of A – the engraver of GE1 considered the original ending of the stem of the g quaver with a characteristic "hook" to be the B note. Deletion of this note in FES is probably a mistake too – the person who wrote this, perhaps Chopin himself, seeing two notes, out of which one was to be deleted and the other preserved, combined these two thoughts in one activity, by deleting the note that was supposed to stay (a similar mistake was committed in FES also in the Sonata in B minor, Op. 58, the 3rd mov. – in bar 28 a  was added, confirming the erroneous text, instead of the mistakenly overlooked  lowering a1 to a1). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , Annotations in FES