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

Rhythm

b. 33

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

Quavers in A

Semiquavers in GE (→FE→EE)
..

According to us, the use of the semiquaver beam in the editions is a result of inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1. In A similar groups are written as quavers in all three analogous bars (bars 14, 33 and 82) and it does not seem that Chopin would have preferred to change this notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 35

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

..

The erasures visible in A are evidence of two corrections within the septuplet of quavers:

  • moving the g2 minim from the middle of the septuplet to the beginning of the bar;
  • removing the superfluous (erroneous) semiquaver beam.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A

b. 36

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

One-part notation in sources

Two-part notation suggested by the editors
..

The graphic separation of the middle voice of the last three chords with a separate beam comes from us. It was necessary to indicate that the  sign applies to this progression; the sign was written by Chopin in A between the notes of the chords in a way impossible to be reproduced in print.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 41

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

Semiquaver in A & GE2

Demisemiquaver in GE1 (→FE→EE1→EE2)

Demisemiquaver in EE3
..

The rhythmic notation of the majority of the sources is incorrect, since the group has only 8½ semiquavers. Therefore, it is most probably a mistake of the engraver who, presumably, added a beam almost "automatically" (in similar situations it is the figures in which the note after the rest is shorter than the previous that appear more frequently). Cf. a similar situation in bar 81. The mistake was revised in GE2 after A and arbitrarily in EE3 (the latter is still erroneous, since the group has, contrary to the indication, only 8 semiquavers).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 41

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

..

In GE2 the grace note was tied with a curved line to the following semiquaver. It is a routine revision, unfortunate in this context, since it suggests sustaining the grace note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions