mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of FE

b. 80

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

Accent in A (→GE)

No mark in FE (→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

It is hard to assume whether the missing accent in FE (→EE) is one of the results of the Chopin proofreading on the 3rd beat of the bar, or whether it is only its unintended side effect or simply an oversight of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 80

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

A (→GE) & EE2 (→EE3)

FE (→EE1)
..

In the main text we give the version of FE (→EE1), proofread by Chopin. The version of A (→GE) may be used as a variant for a smaller hand. EE2 (→EE3) introduced the earlier version, most probably on the basis of comparison with GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 80

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

Hemidemisemiquavers in A & FE (→EE)

Demisemiquavers in GE
..

Demisemiquavers in GE are certainly a mistake, corrected in FE (→EE) possibly by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 81

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

8 notes in A

8 notes in GE

9 notes with g2 in FE (→EE), contextual interpretation

9 notes with g2 suggested by the editors

9 notes with e2 – another interpretation of FE (→EE)

Idem, alternative rhythm
..

The roulade ending this bar has two basic versions in the sources:

  • an eight-note one in A (→GE), in which f2 appears directly after d2;
  • a nine-note one in FE (→EE), in which between d2 and f2 there is also g2.

The second was undoubtedly introduced on Chopin's request, however, its notation raises certain doubts – the g2 note added in the proofreading is preceded with a  (cautionary?), being totally unjustified in this context (e.g. both in analogous bars 13 and 32 and in the discussed bar the top most note of this figure, g3, is written without a ). Therefore, one could wonder whether a Terzverschreibung error could have been committed here and whether the intended note could have been an e2, which naturally develops the melodic line of this figure after the e1 semiquaver. We suggest this possibility as an alternative interpretation of the Chopin proofreading of FE.

Differences in the notation of the rhythm of the figure's ending – see the last note in this bar – cause that two slightly differing rhythmic schemes can be ascribed to each of the versions of the roulade discussed above.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 85

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

Grace note & arpeggio sign in A

Grace note in GE1

Double grace note in FE (→EE)

Slur & grace note in GE2
..

Both authentic notations of the ornament – A and FE (→EE) – mean the same performance. The mistake of GE1 originated from an unrecognised arpeggio sign in the vertical slur, which, at that period of Chopin's life, would increasingly replace the more accurately written signs in the form of a wavy line. The way the slur was added in GE2 caused that the proper sense of the Chopin notation was still not conveyed in this edition. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE