Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt II

The piano part in ½A was prepared by Chopin extremely carefully as evidenced by the great variety and precision of performance markings as well as visible corrections (scratching and deletions), less numerous in this movement of the Concerto. The corrections included both minor improvements of notation, e.g. moving the  sign in bars 6-7, and more serious changes, e.g. of the accompaniment's shape in bars 12-13. One can also find corrections of slurring, as e.g. in bars 41-42 and retouches of performance markings, e.g. deletions of appassionato in bar 43 and 56. The composer would add minor improvements also later, while proofreading GE1 and FE.

In spite of visible efforts directed at making the notation of A legible, it includes quite a lot of inaccuracies, which resulted from, among others, haste, increasing as the composer was writing (particularly noticeable in the notation of the 3rd movement of the Concerto). The most numerous group are overlooked accidentals, e.g. in bars 2, 21, 22, 29, 40, 52, 62, 65, 69, 75. It is generally very characteristic for Chopin, particularly in his earlier compositions, but it generally does not hamper the correct interpretation of the text. The majority of these inaccuracies was being gradually eliminated in subsequent editions.

Other major errors include:

• erroneous rhythm in bar 6,
• erroneous chord in the L.H. at the beginning of bar 25,
• no octave sign in bars 72-74.

Writing note heads in the parts of wind instruments in bold is a characteristic feature of certain fragments of the piano reduction of the orchestral part. The difference in the size is perfectly visible already in the first five bars of this movements; from bar 44 onwards, one can notice that very delicate note heads written by Chopin were then enhanced – written in bold – so that they become clearly bigger. It is difficult to say who could have been doing it, but the mistakes committed at that time – in the 3rd movement of the Concerto, bar 54 and 492 – rather exclude Chopin (after all, he could have commissioned it to someone). Anyway, the work was done quickly, on a finished text, since the fragments in bold left stamps on adjacent pages (e.g. in the 3rd movement of the Concerto, p. 8 and 9 of ½A), which proves that the pages were turned without waiting for the ink to dry. Jan Ekier formulated the hypothesis that "the emboldened sections were to be performed by the soloist when the particular movement was being played with the accompaniment of string quartet".* This phenomenon is absent in the 1st movement of the Concerto.

The treble clef added in pencil on the bottom stave in bar 50, not included in GE1, is surely a later, foreign addition.

½A was written a few years after the Concerto was composed, despite the most probable existence of earlier sources (e.g. now lost [AI] and [SI]). Dating of and background to ½A – see the characterization of A in the 1st movement of the Concerto.

* Jan Ekier, Source Commentary to the facsimile edition of the Concerto, The Fryderyk Chopin Institute 2005, p. 26.