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. 5-6

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

Tied crotchet f1 in A & GE2

Tied minim f1 in GE1

No crotchet f1 in chord in EE
..

The version of GE1 (→FE) generally indicates the same performance as the version of A – the f1 crotchet in the last chord in bar 5 is not tied, hence it is to be played, whereas it is the minim in bar 6 that is to be sustained. This kind of unclear notation must be a mistake, yet it is uncertain whether the mistake was committed at the time of engraving the text of A or at the time of implementing the proofreading ordered by Chopin. If we assume that only a part of the ordered corrections was implemented – a dot extending the minim in bar 5 and a longer tie were added, whereas f1 was not removed from the chord on the 3rd crotchet of the bar – the aim of a possible proofreading could have been the version given in EE. In the face of the above doubts, in the main text we present the correct text of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections

b. 5-6

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

Slur in A & GE2

Slur c1-b in GE1

Slur c1-d1 in FE

2 slurs in EE

Our alternative suggestion, slur a-b
..

The vague placement of the slur in GE1 – it can be seen as a slur of c1-d1 (literal interpretation) or c1-b (interpretation of FE) or even a-b – points to a possibility of the engraver's mistake. Due to this reason, in the main text we present the unquestionable slur of A. According to us, however, Chopin's proofreading cannot be excluded; it could have been inaccurately implemented by the engraver. In this case, we consider the slur of a-b to be a version probably intended by Chopin. The version of EE is most probably arbitrary, whereas GE2 restored the text of A. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 5

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

..

In FE the bottom note of the 1st crotchet is an erroneous f1 instead of a1 – cf. analogous bar 329 as well as similar situations in bars 11, 13, 27, 29 and analog., which always include a1. The visible traces of corrections prove that the mistake initially got to EE, in which it was, however, corrected in print.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error

b. 5-6

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

..

Most accidentals before quavers are written lower than the corresponding noteheads. In this case it poses obviously no risk of a misunderstanding.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Accidental below/above the note

b. 6

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

3 staccato dots in A & GE2

4 dots in GE1 (→FE→EE1→EE2)

6 dots in EE3
..

The dot over c3, present in GE1 (→FE→EE), could have been added by Chopin. According to us, however, an inaccuracy of the engraver is more likely; therefore, in the main text we adhere to the version of A. In GE2 the additional dot was omitted, whereas in EE3 two dots more were added to four dots of EE2, hence all quavers in this bar are provided with dots (probably by analogy with bar 330).

category imprint: Differences between sources

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