mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of GE

b. 285-289

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

cresc. - - from bar 285 in A & GE2

cresc. in bars 285 & 287 in GE1 (→FE→EE)

cresc. - - [ - ] from bar 285 suggested by the editors

cresc. - - [ - ] from bar 287, our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we give the cresc. written in bar 285 in A and extended by dashes to the end of bar 289 (we suggest to extend the dashes to the end of bar 290 so that they lead to a natural point, which in this case is  in bar 291). The repetition of the indication present in GE1 (→FE→EE) in bar 287, unjustified in this context, signalises a possible mistake. An alternative suggestion is based on a less likely assumption that Chopin, while proofreading GE1, wanted to move  to bar 287, but the proofreading was implemented only partially.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 293-295

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

Shorter  in A

Different  in GE1 (→FE)

Longer  in EE & GE2
..

We give the  hairpin in the main text on the basis of A. It is the only version whose authenticity does not raise any doubts. The musically sensible version of GE1 (→FE) may be considered an equal variant; however, it may be a result of the engraver's inaccuracy. In the version of EE and GE2 one can see an arbitrary attempt to unify the notation of GE1 (→FE) or another inaccuracy.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 296

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

..

A has an a1 as the last note in the L.H. It is almost certainly a mistake – cf. analogous figures in bars 300, 302 and 304-306. Mistakes in the number of ledger lines are the most frequent pitch errors committed by Chopin (excluding those related to the notation of accidentals). GE (→FE→EE) features the correct text, which can be ascribed to Chopin's proofreading or a fortunate mistake, since there are no visible traces of correction in print, whereas the note in A, despite three ledger lines, is written lower than the previous g1.
In the discussed place, there is a visible correction in A. The deletions are actually very precise, yet their placement allows us to indicate e1 and d1 as possibly crossed out original (or only erroneous) last two notes.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Terzverschreibung error , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 297-298

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

Motivic slurs in A (→GE1)

Whole-bar slurs in FE

Whole-bar slurs in both hands in EE

Motivic slurs in both hands in GE2
..

It cannot be excluded that the slurs of GE1, compliant with A, were corrected by Chopin in the last phase of proofreading, whereas the whole-bar long slurs of FE reproduce the state prior to the proofreading. Traces of such a change are visible in GE1 in a similar situation in bars 295-296. Anyway, the slurs of FE (→EE) are certainly erroneous, whereas the analogous slurs added in EE in the L.H. are inauthentic – it is difficult to assume that Chopin would order to copy an erroneous slurring. The slurs in the L.H. added in GE2 actually specify the notation of A, yet they cannot come from Chopin, since the edition was developed after his death on the basis of GE1 compared with A. In this situation, it can be considered almost certain that all slurs in the L.H. added in EE and GE2 in the entire section until bar 308 are an arbitrary revision – cf. notes on bars 293-294, 295-304, 301-302, 303-304 and 306-308.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1

b. 297-299

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

2 accents in A & GE2

No marks in GE1 (→FE)

Accent in bar 297 in EE
..

The absence of the accents in bars 297 and 299 in GE1 (→FE) may be considered to be a result of the inaccuracy of the engraver or of Chopin's proofreading – see bars 293-295. The accent of EE in bar 297 is a revision performed after analogous bars 293 and 295 or a mistake. The signs in GE2 were added on the basis of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE