mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 1

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

in A (→GE) & EE

No indication in FE

written into FES
..

The absence of a dynamic indication is most probably an oversight of the engraver of FE. The addition of  in EE was performed probably on the basis of a comparison with bar 91. In turn, the  indication written in FES, in spite of the fact that there are no reasons to question its authenticity, is, however, most probably only an ad hoc lesson comment, correcting the absence of the dynamic indication in FE. Therefore, we do not consider it to be an expression of a general change of the dynamic concept of this introduction. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 45-52

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

Accompaniment in FES, literal interpretation

Accompaniment in FES, contextual interpretation

Version of remaining sources
..

In FES Chopin wrote a simplified reduction of the recitative's orchestral accompaniment, which can be used while performing this movement solo. The accompaniment is to be played with the L.H. instead of the original part and in few places also the part of the R.H. was completed. In bars 45-47 the notation is most probably inaccurate – the applied abbreviation, when interpreted literally, orders striking the bass in the bottom octave (A1), which is both sonically unjustified and technically uncomfortable (cf. similar inaccuracies in the Etude in A major, Op. 25 No. 1, bars 1-8 and the Nocturne in D major, Op. 27 No. 2, bar 1).

After choosing the version with the harmonic accompaniment, it may be necessary to select relevant versions also in bars 45 (pedal), 46 (staccato dots), 47-48 (slurs), 51 (slurs) and 52 (slurs and staccato signs).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

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. 64-72

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

Accompaniment in FES, interpretation

FES version with change suggested by the editors

Version of remaining sources
..

It is puzzling that the changes of the bass note at the end of bar 64 and in the 1st half of bar 65, written in Morch and other sources of the orchestral part, were not considered in the harmonic accompaniment added in FES (see bars 45-52). According to us, it can be a result of inadvertence, hence we suggest a corresponding hypothesis in this place. 
The doubt about the rhythm's interpretation – see bar 69. 

After choosing the version with accompaniment, it may be necessary to select corresponding versions also in bar 65 (d-d) and 69 (g-g), 65 (staccato signs), 67 (tie of e2) and in notes on slurs in bars 64, 64-65, 65-68 and 66-69.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants