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. 52

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

..

In A there are no accidentals before the 11th semiquaver (in both hands), as a result of which both here and two notes later one should read an a(1). Chopin's patent oversight was corrected in all editions.
A cautionary  before the 12th semiquaver – g(1) – is written in A only in the R.H. This inaccuracy was also corrected in the editions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign

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. 53

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

Fingering written into FED

No teaching fingering
..

The fingering digit coming undoubtedly from Chopin is written into FED.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 53

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

Different slurs in A

New slurs in GE (→FE→EE)

Continued slurs suggested by the editors
..

In the R.H. A has a continuing slur, whereas in the L.H. it starts a new one, which may be regarded as justified concerning the absence of a slur in the L.H. in the previous bar. In the main text, we homogenise the slurring of both hands in accordance with the analysis carried out in that bar.

If the version with harmonic accompaniment was chosen in the note below, one of the versions with a slur only in the R.H. is to be selected here.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 53

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

Long & 2 short accents in A

2 short L.H. accents in GE1 (→FE)

2 vertical L.H. accents in EE1 (→EE2)

4 vertical accents in EE3

2 short accents in GE2
..

The notation of the accents in the 1st half of the bar is not entirely clear. In A the first accent has arms of different length, so that it is uncertain whether a long or short sign is to be considered here. The analogy with similar motifs at the beginning of bars 48-49 and 54-55 encourage us to consider it a long accent (our main text). On the other hand, none of the aforementioned bars includes an accent on the 2nd beat, which undermines the power of this analogy.
In addition, the aim of providing the 2nd crotchet with two accents is also unclear, which was not included in GE (→FE→EE1→EE2). Moreover, in the majority of the editions, both accents were assigned to the L.H., which is most probably a result of inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 (corrected in GE2, where the accents were placed in the middle between the staves). The changes of font and number of accents introduced in EE are certainly inauthentic.

If the version with harmonic accompaniment was chosen in the previous note, one of the versions without accents for the L.H. (second or sixth) is to be selected here.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions