mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in A

b. 2

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

..

In A there is no  before the top note of the octave. This patent inaccuracy was corrected in GE (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 10

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

..

In A (→GE1→FE) there is no  lowering f to f. Chopin's patent oversight was corrected in EE and GE2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 13

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

Slur from 2nd quaver in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

Slur from 1st quaver in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Deletions made Chopin rewrite the part of the L.H. on an adjacent stave. In the new notation of the 1st half of the bar, the slur embraces only three quavers (starting from the second). Above the deleted original version there is, however, a slur embracing four quavers, so theoretically one can ponder which one (or maybe both?) is valid. The legible original notation shows that the changes concerned the bass note only, which was initially an A, which explains the fact of embracing the entire figure with one slur. After moving the bass one octave lower, one can take for granted that Chopin left the longer slur by inadvertence only. This is how it was interpreted in GE2, yet in GE1 (→FE→EE) a half-bar slur was adopted.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 13

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

 in A, more likely reading

 in A, less likely reading

No sign in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In view of the deletions in A one can understand that the engraver of GE (→FE→EE) omitted the  sign written there. However, the deletions clearly concern the L.H. part only, and not the hairpin, hence we include it in the main text. The range of the sign is also questionable, since the upper arm is clearly shorter than the lower one. It is a frequent situation in Chopin's autographs, however, generally it is the context or similar places that allow us to guess the composer's intention. In this case, leading crescendo makes sense both to the top most note of the passage and to the minim in the next bar: it is confirmed by the notation of analogous bars 32 and 81, in which the hairpin reaches the top most note in one case and the end of the bar in the other one. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 20

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

 in A, probable reading

 in A (possible reading→GE→FE→EE)
..

The upper arm of the  sign in A is clearly longer than the lower. In the main text we adopt the most likely, according to us, interpretation in which the sign reaches the accented chord on the 4th beat of the bar. In GE (→FE→EE) the influence of  is limited to the 1st half of the bar.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in A