mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 41

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

in A (→GE)

No marking in FE (→EE)
..

The missing  is most probably an oversight of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 63-64

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

Small-print f1 in A (→GE)

Normal-print octave in FE (→EE)

Small-print octave suggested by the editors
..

Replacing the single f1 note with an f-f1 octave in FE (→EE) is certainly a change introduced by Chopin – cf. 1st mov., bar 348. However, the same cannot be said of printing this octave with notes of a normal size, in both bars. There had to be a misunderstanding at the time of implementing the proofreading, since adding this octave to the solo part is unimaginable, as far as the logic of the dialogue between the soloist and the orchestra is concerned.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 73

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

..

FE has an erroneous f2 instead of e2 present in A (→GE) as the 3rd note of the passage in the L.H. The patent mistake was rectified in EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 78-79

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

 i  in A

> &  in GE1 & EE

 &  in FE

 &  in GE2

Our alternative suggestion – 
..

In the main text we give dynamic markings of A, which are unquestionable, as far as sources and music are concerned. In this context, the markings of GE1 (→FE →EE) – two subsequent  signs – are illogical to such an extent that one could suspect a mistake. In fact, taking into account the fact that  in bar 79 is poorly visible in A, it seems to be highly likely that  in this place resulted from an erroneous interpretation of A (the shape of the sign in A is one of the numerous arguments for Chopin's haste, increasing as he was writing A). In turn,  added at the beginning of bar 78 may be interpreted as an attempt to rectify the mistake from bar 79 – Chopin may have wanted to move  to bar 78, where it would not collide so strikingly with its original, and perhaps the only, dynamic concept, written in A. It would be an example of unfinished proofreading, in which a new sign was added without having deleted the old one. We give the version, perhaps intended by Chopin, as an alternative suggestion.
We consider the sign visible in A at the beginning of bar 78 – same as in bar 70 – to be a long accent. In this case, it was reproduced in GE1 as a short accent, whereas in GE2 – as a short . It is unclear how the sign appeared in EE, being absent in FE. The accent was most probably overlooked in FE, whereas in EE it was added by analogy with bar 70 – the hairpin is longer there, but the reviser could have been impelled to shorten it by the absence of a note on the 3rd beat of the bar. A strong argument for such an explanation is the revision of EE in bar 70, going in an opposite direction, since it added  drawn from here.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Inaccuracies in A , Partial corrections

b. 90-92

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

Long accents in A (→GE)

Long accent in bar 92 in FE

Short accents in EE
..

In FE, the accent in bar 90 was overlooked, which is undoubtedly a mistake. The sign was added in EE, probably by analogy with identical bar 92. Same as in all subsequent, similar bars, EE has short accents (cf. notes in bars 98-103, 106-108 and 114-116). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE