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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 97-103

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

No ties in A (→GE→FE)

Ties in EE
..

The version of EE, with ties of the fourths in the L.H. in bars 97-98, 98-99, 101-102 and 102-103, is certainly arbitrary. The ties deprive the phrases of accented delays, so characteristic of the entire section.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 141-144

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

..

In the main text we give the version of A (→GE→FE→EE). However, Morch has a different rhythmic and articulation solution in the viola and cello parts:

.
Chopin most probably diversified this four-bar section in the versions for solo piano and with orchestra on purpose, taking into consideration the difference between the sound of piano and strings (it is the only case in both Concertos).

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

b. 157-158

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

a1 repeated in A (→GE1 →FE)

a1 tied in EE & GE2
..

The missing tie of a1 is almost certainly a mistake of Chopin, who did not introduce the changes performed in the R.H. to the L.H. It seems that a1(2) at the beginning of bar 158 was to be originally repeated – the crotchet in the part of the R.H. was even provided with a staccato dot, deleted then probably when a tie was added. This scenario is confirmed also by the dots over the crotchets at the end of bar 157 – see the note dedicated to them. A tie was added in EE and GE2.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors of A , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 167

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

Semiquaver in A

Slashed grace note in GE1

Quaver in FE (→EE)

Grace note in GE2

Rest & semiquaver suggested by the editors
..

The semiquaver opening the bassoon motif was given the form of a slashed grace note in GE, which could have been influenced by the notation of A, in which the grace note is unusually small. On the other hand, in A it is written as a semiquaver, in accordance with the rhythm in Morch in the part of bassoon, which is playing this motif. Therefore, it is unlikely that a grace note would be compliant with Chopin's intention. The reason for the change could have been formal rhythmic correctness, since due to the lack of rests before this note, only a grace note fits smoothly between three crotchets of this bar. In turn, it is difficult to say what the motivation of the person (Chopin?) who changed the grace note to a quaver in FE (→#EE) was. In the main text we choose the undoubtedly authentic notation of A, adding the rest overlooked by Chopin for the record.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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

b. 195

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

Tie to a1 in A & GE2

Slur under 3rd beat in GE1

Slur to a1 in bar 196 in FE (→EE)
..

The version of GE stems from a misunderstanding of the notation of A – the tie of a1 in bars 195-196 was reproduced as a slur of the top voice in bar 195. The fact that the slur is led to the minim in bar 196 in FE (→EE) is owed to the proofreading, possibly a Chopin one, whose aim was most probably to restore the version of A, yet it was implemented inaccurately. A possibility that Chopin resigned from sustaining a1, and that he wanted to combine both parts of this transitional phrase by extending the slur (cf. the adjacent note), seems to be much less likely. Therefore, we adopt the version of A to the main text.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE