mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 65

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

Long accent in A

 in GE1

 in FE

 in EE & GE2
..

The sign in A is a typical long accent. In GE1 it was moved to the end of the triplet, so it is unknown which note it concerns (the engraver most probably considered it a  hairpin). In the remaining editions, the placement and size of the sign were subject to further arbitrary changes although the notations of EE and GE2 are generally similar to the notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 70

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

Long accent in A

 in GE (→FE)

 in EE
..

We consider the sign written in A to be a long accent, although preceding it with a short  sign in bar 69 could suggest a  hairpin (however, in this context performance difference would be minimal). The sign was reproduced in all editions as diminuendo; moreover, in EE it was preceded with , most probably repeated after analogous bar 78.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 70

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

Slashed grace note in A

Grace note without slash in GE1

Medium-size crotchet in FE

Normal-size crotchet in EE

Grace note without slash in GE2
..

It is a very instructive example of how the accumulation of minor inaccuracies of subsequent editions transformed the acciaccatura in A into a regular crotchet in EE (the crotchet in FE is printed in a font of intermediary size, used in the orchestral part). All changes concerning the a1 note are most probably erroneous, whereas placing it over the rest in GE1 seems to have been forced by lack of space.
The fingering written in FED in the next two bars suggests that the fragment was developed in more details during lessons with Chopin. Therefore, one can ponder why the composer did not react to the erroneous notation of FED. According to us, performing the a1 as a crotchet could have been accepted by Chopin when phrased accordingly. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 80-82

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

Slur in bars 81-82 in A (→GE)

Slur form 3rd beat of bar 80 in FE (→EE)
..

The earlier started slur in FE (→EE) is an inauspicious interpretation of the carelessly written slur of GE1. In addition, the endings of the slurs at the transition between bars 81 and 82 are incompatible in GE1 and FE. We interpret these inaccuracies in favour of a continuous slur due to proximity of a correct slur in bars 83-84.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 82

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

L.H. long accent in A

R.H. short accent in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The accent in A is not unequivocal as such, hence its interpretation in GE (→FE→EE) as a short accent for the R.H. is not conspicuous. However, a comparison with the notation of analogous bars resolves the doubt in the favour of a long accent over the L.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions