Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 96

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

No sign in A

 in GE (→FEEE)

Our alternative suggestion

Our variant suggestion

..

The  sign, overlooked in A, could have been added in GE (→FEEE) by Chopin. However, it is uncertain, and it seems to be possible that Chopin, in the descending part of the passage, could have been thinking of the pedalling he wrote in bar 88. Therefore, in the main text we give two pedalling proposals to choose from – an analogous to bar 88 in square brackets and the one added in GE1, in brackets.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 96

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

..

The ending of the slur in GE1 was printed inaccurately – the slur at the end of the line suggests continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in the next bar. In this case, this very frequent inaccuracy did not provoke mistakes in the remaining editions.

In the initial part of the slur (in bar 93), one can see clear traces of proofreading of the slurs in GE1 – initially, one slur embraced bars 92-93. In GE1a, one can see that the slurs in the further part were originally different – one slur reached the end of bar 95, whereas the other ran above bar 96. Therefore, the inaccurate ending of the corrected slur described above is a result of an inaccurately implemented proofreading.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1

b. 97-103

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

No ties in A (→GEFE)

Ties in EE

..

The version of EE, with ties of the fourths in the L.H. in bars 97-98, 98-99, 101-102 and 102-103, is certainly arbitrary. The ties deprive the phrases of accented delays, so characteristic of the entire section.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 98-103

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

4 long accents in A & GE2

Long accent & 3 short ones in GE1

2 long accents in FE

2 short accents in EE

..

In the main text we give accents in the L.H. in bars 98-99 and 102-103 after A and GE2, modelled after it. All differences between the remaining editions can be attributed to mistakes (oversight of signs in bars 98 and 103 in FE and EE, based on it) or inaccuracies (changes of the length of the accents). As a consequence, one can consider only the accent in bar 98 in GE1 and both accents in FE (bars 99 and 102) to be compliant with Chopin's notation; the accents, although unobvious at the first sight, as far as the type of the employed accent is concerned, are clearly longer than the short accents in bar 118, present on the same page.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 98

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

Slurs in A & GE2

FE (→EE)

..

The slurs of GE1, contrary to A and to a natural division into motifs, emphasised with a transfer of the hand, were partially corrected in FE (→EE). According to us, it is uncertain whether it was a result of Chopin's intervention or inaccuracy of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of FE