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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 273

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

No mark in sources

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the absence of the accent over the g1 minim may be considered an inaccuracy of Chopin's notation. Both the accent in analogous bar 265 and the one suggested here form part of the elements co-creating the air of the virtuoso brilliance of these passages.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 278-280

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

4 accents in A & GE2

3 accents in GE1

4 accents in FE

4 accents in EE
..

The omission of the last accent in bar 280 in GE1 must be a mistake. The accent was added in FE, yet it was placed inaccurately, as a result of which it is uncertain whether it applies to the 2nd or the 1st quaver of the triplet (the 1st accent in bar 278 in FE is even more inaccurate; we interpret it to apply to the 1st quaver in the bar). In EE, three out of four accents were put a quaver earlier, on the 1st or 7th note in the bar, which is a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

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. 293-299

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

No marks in A (→GE1→FE→EE)

Accents on c in GE2
..

In GE2 accents in the L.H. were added at the beginning of bars 293, 295, 297 and 299. It is a part of a more extensive revision, in which all articulation markings of the R.H. (dots and slurs) were repeated in the L.H. part.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 294

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

Wedge in A

Dots in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The wedge over d1 is very clear in A, although it was placed atypically due to the deletion over the stave – next to the crotchet stem. Therefore, reproducing it as a dot is most probably an inaccuracy. In turn, the status of the dot in the L.H. is unclear – theoretically, it could have been added by Chopin, yet taking into account the deletions of the signs referring to the L.H. visible in A in bars 294, 296 and 298, we consider it to be an editorial revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Wedges