mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors resulting from corrections

b. 14

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

No slur in A (→GE1→GE2,FE→EE1)

Slur b2-b2 in GE1a & EE2 (→EE3)
..

In the 2nd half of the bar GE1 initially included an erroneous slur, running from the b2 crotchet to the next bar (most probably instead of the slur written in A, running from b2). Over time, the traces of removal of the erroneous slur became very visible (cf. another copy of GE1), so that it was already in GE1a that the place was reengraved. However, instead of removing the traces of the original slur, it was replaced with a shorter one, reaching to b2 only. The slur was added also in EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 74

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

Indications in A. literal reading

Indications in A, contextual interpretation
..

GE (→FE→EE) overlooked the dashes determining the range of diminuendo, which was rather a rule than an exception in the Concerto. The doubt about the placement of the rallentando indication, caused by a deletion in A, is of greater importance – it does begin after the 3rd beat of the bar, but also before the last beat. In the editions the first relation was included, yet in the main text we consider the second to be closer to Chopin's intention. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Inaccuracies in A

b. 77

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

g in A

B-g in GE (→FE→EE)

B in FES
..

The version of A is, according to us, the only authentic text of this place. The sixth in GE (→FE→EE) is almost certainly a result of a misinterpretation of A – the engraver of GE1 considered the original ending of the stem of the g quaver with a characteristic "hook" to be the B note. Deletion of this note in FES is probably a mistake too – the person who wrote this, perhaps Chopin himself, seeing two notes, out of which one was to be deleted and the other preserved, combined these two thoughts in one activity, by deleting the note that was supposed to stay (a similar mistake was committed in FES also in the Sonata in B minor, Op. 58, the 3rd mov. – in bar 28 a  was added, confirming the erroneous text, instead of the mistakenly overlooked  lowering a1 to a1). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , Annotations in FES

b. 81

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

..

In the editions the last note is written as a hemidemisemiquaver. Therefore, the group filling the 4th beat of the bar contains a fractional number of demisemiquavers – 8½ in GE1 and 9½ in FE (→EE), which must be regarded as a mistake. The engraver of GE1 probably shortened the last note, kind of "automatically" – cf. bar 41. The mistake was revised only in GE2, by reducing the value of the rest, which does not correspond to Chopin's original intention expressed in A. However, it could be that an additional beam was added in GE1 (→FE→EE) upon inspiration from Chopin, whereas leaving the rest without any changes was merely an oversight. In that situation, the version of GE2 would be a rational correction of an inaccurately performed proofreading of GE1. Such a possibility would be indicated by the overlooked '9' digit, determining the number of demisemiquavers in the group. The above analysis of the rhythm of the roulade's ending is binding regardless of the versions of its earlier part – see the previous note in this bar. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors