mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

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. 86-87

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

Continuous slur in A (→GE1)

Divided slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In GE1, bar 86 is the last one on the page, whereas the slurs in this and the next bar do not fit together – the slur in bar 86 (proofread) clearly suggest continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur beginning in bar 87. In the remaining editions, the doubt was resolved in favour of separated slurs, although the ending of the slur in FE in bar 86 is not completely unambiguous. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 91-92

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

Continuous slur in A & GE2

2 slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

In bar 91, the last one in the line of the text, the slur in GE1 suggests continuation, yet it can be considered to be inaccurately drawn, particularly since the slur in bar 92 starts from the 1st note. As a result, FE (→EE) has a clearly separate slur in each of these bars. GE2 reproduced the two-bar slur of A accurately.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 98-103

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

4 long accents in A & GE2

Long accent & 3 short ones in GE1

2 long accents in FE

2 short accents in EE
..

In the main text we give accents in the L.H. in bars 98-99 and 102-103 after A and GE2, modelled after it. All differences between the remaining editions can be attributed to mistakes (oversight of signs in bars 98 and 103 in FE and EE, based on it) or inaccuracies (changes of the length of the accents). As a consequence, one can consider only the accent in bar 98 in GE1 and both accents in FE (bars 99 and 102) to be compliant with Chopin's notation; the accents, although unobvious at the first sight, as far as the type of the employed accent is concerned, are clearly longer than the short accents in bar 118, present on the same page.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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