mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
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
Undo Clear

b. 99-101

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

No slur in A

Slur in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The slur of the L.H., overlooked by Chopin in A, was added in the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2). In this case, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this addition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 101-103

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

Fingering written into FED

No teaching fingering
..

The teaching fingering may demonstrate that Chopin considered marking the 4th finger in bar 97 to be enough – passing the 4th finger over the fifth and then sliding the 1st finger from the black key to the white one – which was not so obvious to other pianists.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 101

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

Slur form 2nd beat in A (probable interpretation→GE1→FE→EE)

Dot & slur from 3rd beat in A (possible interpretation) & GE2
..

It is uncertain which articulation for the 2nd crotchet in the bar Chopin envisioned. A small spot over the note could be a staccato dot, and it was reproduced as such in GE2. In this case, the inaccurate beginning of the slur of A should be interpreted as written with flourish, yet concerning only the 3rd crotchet. According to us, it is still possible that the spot constitutes the beginning of the slur, separated from the following part due to ink stoppage. A abounds in defects of this kind, although they generally do not hamper the interpretation of the composer's intention – cf. e.g. 1st mov., bar 216 or 309, 2nd mov., bar 16. (The mentioned spot can be simply a spot and not be related to the notation of the Concerto at all). In the main text we give a slur from the 2nd crotchet due to:

  • analogy with bar 97,
  • a potential Chopin proofreading of the slur in GE1 (→FE→EE), which seems to be indicated by certain minor printing defects around this slur.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 101

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

..

It is uncertain whether the 2nd crotchet in the L.H. in A is provided with a staccato dot or not. In GE1 (→FE→EE) there is no dot; however, it was added in GE2.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 102-103

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

..

In GE, the 2nd and 3rd triplets in bar 102 and the 1st and 2nd triplets in bar 103 were provided with an octave sign, so they are written an octave too high. The mistake stemmed from a change performed in the notation of this fragment – Chopin wrote it using an octave sign, whereas in GE1, planning on omitting 8 - - -, the notes were printed at the actual pitch, yet the octave sign was left by mistake. The error was corrected, probably by Chopin, in FE (→EE1), but it was unnoticed by the reviser of GE2. The erroneous octave sign was introduced also in EE2; EE3 restored the correct text. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE