mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of GE

b. 376-377

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

Slur in GE1 (→FE)

Completed slur in GE1 (possible interpretation of A)

Slurs in EE (possible interpretation of A)

Slur in GE2 (possible interpretation of A)

No slurs (possible interpretation of A)
..

In A, the quavers in bar 376, the last on this page, are encompassed with a slur, which clearly points to continuation, yet in bar 377 there is no ending of this slur. Chopin did not write any slurs in the L.H. until the end of this Solo, hence it seems that he renounced the slurring in the L.H. in this fragment, considering the slurs in the R.H. to be enough. Due to this reason, in the main text we omit the described fragment of the slur. It may be possible that the absence of continuation of the slurring is only a result of haste, particularly since in analogous bars 32-33 the slurs in A are written in the parts of both hands. Therefore, the slur of GE1, completed after the R.H., and the slurs of EE and GE2 can be considered to be compliant with Chopin's intention.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 378

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

No slur in A

Slur in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In the main text we leave the notation of A, without the slur in the L.H. The slur of GE (→FE→EE), perhaps added by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1 and compliant with the authentic slur in analogous bar 34, can also be considered to be compatible with Chopin's intention.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 384-385

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

Slurs in A

Slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the slurs of A, which do not raise any doubts concerning both the sources and music. However, the version of GE may be considered at least to be equal:

  • an inaccuracy consisting in engraving a slur incompatible with the division into bars or groups is something practically unusual in GE1, which, in spite of the lack of visible traces of corrections, makes Chopin's proofreading highly likely. The proofreading of the slurs can also be indicated by the slurring of FE (→EE), perhaps reproducing the state of GE1 from before the last phase of proofreading;
  • Chopin wrote such a system of slurs in analogous bars 40-41.

The arguments for the adoption of the notation of A are as follows:

  • a legible, unequivocal notation;
  • no dynamic markings in these bars, emphasising the beginning of the ascending passage – cf.   in bars 40-41. A shorter slur of A suggests that a new thought begins in bar 385, which compensates this deficiency to a certain extent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 387-388

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

Slur in A (→GE)

2 slurs in FE (→EE)
..

It is difficult to say whether the division of the slur in FE (→EE) is a consequence of a mistake of the engraver of FE or whether the slurs were corrected in GE1 in the last phase of proofreading, already after having sent the copies to Paris. In the main text we give the only authentic version of A (→GE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 392

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

Sixth in A & GE2

a2 alone in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

The absence of the bottom note in GE1 (→FE→EE) may be considered an oversight of the engraver of Chopin's proofreading – in similar bar 48, there is a sole a2 as the grace note.
In GE1, the head of the grace note is placed at the right pitch, but the ledger line was overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE