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. 2-3

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

..

The division of the chords between the hands on the 2nd and 3rd beats of bar 2 in GE (→FE→EE) was reproduced incorrectly: contrary to A the b1 and b1 notes were assigned to the L.H.
In GE1 (→FE) all five notes of the chord at the beginning of bar 3 were erroneously placed on one stem. 

 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 6

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

Rhythm in A

Rhythm in GE

Rhythm in FE

Interpretation of FE suggested by the editors

Rhythm in EE

Interpretation of A suggested by the editors
..

All source notations of the 2nd half of the bar are erroneous or unclear, however, none of them can be corrected in a way that would not be questioned.

  • In A the 3rd beat of the bar includes 9 demisemiquavers.
  • In GE the introduction of a smaller font to write demisemiquavers does not have an impact on the rhythmic values and seems to be an arbitrary decision of the engraver: he could have noticed a difference between the size of note heads in the 1st and 2nd halves of the bar. It appears even more likely when considering his blunder in the first Tutti in the 1st movement of the Concerto; following that incident, he must have paid attention even to the slightest differences in the size of note heads.
  • The corrected notation of FE, which interpreted literally is at the very least unclear, could have been a result of that mistake. Since the proofreading of FE was probably performed on Chopin's demand, one has to consider what its intended result could have been. The suggested solution is both formally correct and very close to the genuine source notation.
  • It is hard to guess what the idea behind the actions of the reviser of EE was.

In this situation, we base the main text on the version of A which, in spite of its inaccuracies, seems to be the most reliable, as far as the authenticity is concerned. Out of two natural possibilities of correcting the mistake (changing two demisemiquavers to hemidemisemiquavers or deleting one of the dots extending the e1 quaver) we choose the second, giving a smoother development of the figuration introducing the main theme. We suggest a modified version of FE as an alternative version.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 7-9

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

Synchronization signs written into FED

No teaching indications
..

Characteristic synchronisation signs of the parts of both hands, in the form of lines combining the notes that are supposed to be played simultaneously, were added next to the groups of small notes in bars 7 and 9 in FED. Similarly in bars 26 and 75.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Synchronization markings

b. 8

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

Rhythm in A & EE3, contextual interpretation

Rhythm in GE1 (→FE→EE1→EE2), contextual interpretation, & GE2
..

In the part of the R.H. it is only GE2 that does not contain a rhythmic error. The version, however, resulted from a revision and it certainly does not correspond to Chopin's intention. For the remaining sources (except for EE3), we adopt an interpretation compatible with the way the R.H. is planned with respect to the quavers in the L.H. As the text of EE3 we adopt the rhythm that, according to us, predominates at the time of interpreting the easiest perceptible elements of the rhythm: a crotchet, an extended crotchet and a group of semiquavers with a triplet inside.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A

b. 13

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

Demisemiquaver g3 in A

Demisemiquaver f3 in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The change of rhythmic values in GE (→FE→EE) is probably a result of a mistake of the engraver of GE1, who could have simply committed a mistake or (being certain that in such figures the note after the rest is shortened) could have considered that it was Chopin that made a mistake. A possible proofreading by Chopin seems to be highly unlikely due to the total absence of changes in print. Chopin would use both types of notation in similar situations; sometimes he would hesitate or change his decisions (see the Scherzo in C minor, Op. 39, bar 47). Cf. a similar situation in bar 32, as well as bar 41 and 81.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inserted rest