mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of FE

b. 2

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

d1 in A (→GE), FE2 & EE2 (→EE3)

d1 in FE1 (→EE1)
..

The absence of a  lowering d1 to d1 is certainly an oversight of the engraver of FE1 (→EE1). The mistake was corrected in FE2 and EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

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. 20

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

a1 in chord in A (→GE)

No a1 in FE (→EE)
..

Omission of the a1 note seems to be a result of Chopin's proofreading, who could have removed it to avoid false relation with the A-a octave on the 4th beat of the bar (in analogous bar 88, in which a remained in the chord, the ending chord is different). However, the version of A (→GE) may be certainly considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 20

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

c2 in chord in A, FE (→EE) & GE2

a1 in chord in GE1
..

The version of GE1 is certainly erroneous: it is most probably a revised Terzverschreibung error, by adding a . Chopin restored the chord with c2, written in A, in a proofreading of FE (→EE). At the time of executing this proofreading, a superfluous  was moved together with the note head.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 29

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

Fourth a-d1 in A, FE (→EE) & GE2

Sixth f-d1 in GE1
..

The sixth in GE1 is a clear example of a Terzverschreibung error, corrected by Chopin in FE (→EE). The correct version was introduced also in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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