mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

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. 3-4

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

R.H. slur from 2nd beat in A

R.H. slur from 3rd beat in GE1 (→FE)

Slurs from 2nd beat in EE & GE2
..

The slur of GE1 (→FE) is clearly erroneous (put one crotchet too far), which was corrected by the revisers of EE and GE2. In both editions a slur for the L.H. was added, which we consider a correct decision, justified by the authentic slurs in the ending of this movement and by a possible Chopin proofreading of GE1 in bars 1-2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 4

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

..

GE1 (→FE→EE) gives an erroneous Fl. next to the lowest voice. The mistake was noticed only in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: 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. 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