mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE inaccuracies

b. 449-451

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

2 slurs in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

3 slurs in GE1 (→FE)

3 slurs in EE
..

The ending of the slur beginning in bar 449 is inaccurate in A, which is confirmed by, among others, the comparison with the next, identical figure (see also bars 409-419). GE1 (→FE→EE) convey the literal interpretation of this slur, yet the contextual interpretation, adopted by us to the main text, was included in GE2. The division of the next slur in bar 450 is an arbitrary action of GE1 (→FE) – in spite of the transition to a new page, the notation of A is unambiguous. In EE, the extension of the first of the two slurs, created as a result of this division, mitigated the consequences of the mistake of GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 485-486

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

 &  in A, literal reading

 & > in A, contextual interpretation

 & > in GE1

 & > in FE

 &  in EE

 in GE2
..

According to us, the virtuoso panache and brilliance require rather accents than diminuendos, hence in the main text we interpret all marks of A as accents (long and short). The  marks printed in GE (→FE→EE), even longer than in the notation of A, hinder the interpretation of a possible intention of the composer even more. Shift of the accent at the end of bar 485 must be an inaccuracy of the engravers of GE1 and FE1.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 486-487

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

No marks in A (→GE)

Different accents in FE, literal reading

Short accents in EE

Long accents suggested by the editors
..

There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the accents added in the proofreading of FE (→EE) on c in bar 486 and on C in bar 487. In turn, it is not clear what kind of accents Chopin had in mind, since it is difficult to assume that he would have liked to differentiate between them. According to us, it is long accents that are more likely, since a shift of the shorter sign (in bar 486) may indicate that the accent written by Chopin was longer than the one printed in FE. However, it is only a suspicion, hence both the long accents suggested in the main text and the short accents in EE may be considered equal variants.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 505-506

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

Slurs in A, possible interpretation

Slurs in GE & EE

Slurs in FE
..

In A bar 505 is the last one on the page and the slurs in this and the next bar do not fit together – the slur in bar 505, although it does not go beyond the bar line, suggests continuation, whereas in bar 506 a new slur clearly begins. In this situation, the version of GE is most probably a result of Chopin's proofreading, since it seems to be unthinkable that the engraver of GE1 would have interpreted the slurs of the base text in this way on his own initiative. This conclusion is confirmed by the traces of corrections of this slur in print, visible in bar 504, cluster of the slur with the  mark in bar 506 and an earlier ending of the slur in FE, perhaps corresponding to the slur of GE1 prior to the final proofreading. The ending of the slur of EE reaching the beginning of bar 506 seems to be inaccurate, yet it can be a result of a revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of GE