Issues : Errors of A

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 equaver) 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. 8

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

Rhythm in A & EE3, contextual interpretation

Rhythm in GE1 (→FEEE1EE2), contextual interpretation, & GE2

..

In the part of the R.H. it is only GE2 that does not contain a rhythmic error. The version, however, resulted from a revision and it certainly does not correspond to Chopin's intention. For the remaining sources (except for EE3), we adopt an interpretation compatible with the way the R.H. is planned with respect to the quavers in the L.H. As the text of EE3 we adopt the rhythm that, according to us, predominates at the time of interpreting the easiest perceptible elements of the rhythm: a crotchet, an extended crotchet and a group of semiquavers with a triplet inside.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A

b. 21

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

..

In A there are no naturals raising d3(2) to d3(2). Chopin's patent oversight was corrected (perhaps by himself) already in GE (→FEEE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 22

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

..

In A the naturals raising d notes to d are written only on the 4th beat of the bar. In spite of this, there are no doubts that d is required in the entire 2nd half of the bar. In GE1 (→FEEE, →GE2) a  raising d3 to dat the beginning of the 3rd beat of the bar was added (referring also to d4), but only EE and GE2 include a corresponding sign before the penultimate semiquaver.

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

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 25

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

E1-G1-E-G in A, literal reading

G1-B1-E-G in A (probable interpretation) & GE2

G1-E-G in GE1 (→FEEE)

..

The chord written in A, although acceptable from the harmonic point of view, is almost certainly erroneous due to its sonically unjustified piano complication. However, it remains unclear which chord Chopin meant:

  • G1-B1-E-G seems to be most natural: an octave transposition of chords is a popular means of the virtuoso concert texture (cf., e.g. the 3rd mov., bar 69 or 511-513). We would then be dealing with Chopin's typical Terzverschreibung error. This is how it was interpreted in GE2 and we suggest this interpretation as the text of A;
  • G1-E-G – a lighter chord due to a very low register (cf. the 3rd mov., bar 77). In this case it is also a Terzverschreibung error that would have to be taken into consideration: Chopin could have written the correct chord and then consider the bottom note to be a B1 and "correct" the alleged mistake, by adding a note placed a third below (the top bottom note seems to have been added later). Such a scenario assumes, however, that two mistakes were committed: an erroneous evaluation of the pitch of the written note and the fact of leaving it, in spite of the fact it was supposed to be removed (cf. the Etude in G major, Op. 10 No. 5, bars 83-84).

In any case, the proofreading of GE1 (→FEEE), probably coming from Chopin, must be considered to be the final decision and this is the version we give in the main text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections