mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 35

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

..

In FE all 5 notes in the part of the R.H. are combined with a quaver beam. The patent mistake was corrected in EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Rhythmic errors

b. 43

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

..

A (→GE) has a cautionary  before d3. The sign was removed – perhaps by Chopin – in the proofreading of FE (→EE1) and restored in EE2 (→EE3). Cf. similar contexts in bar 39 and 383 as well as 387.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Last key signature sign

b. 64-65

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

..

In A, there is no change of clef to treble in the part of the L.H. before the entrance of the solo piano in bar 65. This patent mistake was rectified in GE, yet the erroneous notation of A is to be found in FE, which suggests that the correction of GE1 was introduced in the last phase of proofreading. EE includes the correct text; the correct clef is written also in FEJ (the carelessly written sign does not allow to identify the person who wrote it; it was probably the owner of the copy, Ludwika Jędrzejewicz).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of A , Errors repeated in FE

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