mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 13

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

 in A, more likely reading

 in A, less likely reading

No sign in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In view of the deletions in A one can understand that the engraver of GE (→FE→EE) omitted the  sign written there. However, the deletions clearly concern the L.H. part only, and not the hairpin, hence we include it in the main text. The range of the sign is also questionable, since the upper arm is clearly shorter than the lower one. It is a frequent situation in Chopin's autographs, however, generally it is the context or similar places that allow us to guess the composer's intention. In this case, leading crescendo makes sense both to the top most note of the passage and to the minim in the next bar: it is confirmed by the notation of analogous bars 32 and 81, in which the hairpin reaches the top most note in one case and the end of the bar in the other one. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 14

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

No slur in A (→GE1→GE2,FE→EE1)

Slur b2-b2 in GE1a & EE2 (→EE3)
..

In the 2nd half of the bar GE1 initially included an erroneous slur, running from the b2 crotchet to the next bar (most probably instead of the slur written in A, running from b2). Over time, the traces of removal of the erroneous slur became very visible (cf. another copy of GE1), so that it was already in GE1a that the place was reengraved. However, instead of removing the traces of the original slur, it was replaced with a shorter one, reaching to b2 only. The slur was added also in EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 15

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

Slur in A, literal reading

Slur in A, possible interpretation

Slur in A, different interpretation

No slur in GE (→FE→EE)
..

Omission of the slur in the editions could have been related to doubts concerning its reach: the slur reaches the half of the bar, but not the d1-e1 minim, which should have been written there. Therefore, it can be interpreted threefold:

  • to e on the 4th quaver, same as in bar 17 and – most importantly – in analogous bar 83;
  • to the minim, which we consider a literal interpretation and which we adopt to the main text;
  • to the end of the bar, which is indicated by its shape, ending ink and a slur added in the 2nd half of the bar probably in a proofreading of GE1 (see the note below).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE

b. 17

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

Slur in A & GE2

No slur in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The missing slur in GE1 (→FE→EE) is undoubtedly a mistake, corrected in GE2 on the basis of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 18

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

Lines & dots in A & GE2

Only dots in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Omission of tenuto dashes over three octaves in GE1 (→FE→EE), despite having been consistently carried out both in this bar and analogous bar 86, does not seem to be Chopin's proofreading. According to us, it could have been a result of the engraver's misunderstanding of the combination of three articulation indications: a slur, tenuto marks and staccato dots. A slur actually designates also phrasing, while dots under a slur were generally used by Chopin to mark a lighter and shorter non legato.
It is the only example of the use of tenuto marks by Chopin in a notation dedicated for print (dashes are also present in the Concerto in E minor, Op. 11, mvt. II, bar 47, and Ballade in G minor, Op. 23, bars 194-198, in both places added in a pupil's copy). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions