mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 506

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

Staccato dots in A & GE2

No marks in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The missing staccato dots over the 4th and 7th quavers in GE1 (→FE→EE) must be an oversight. The signs were added in GE2. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 506-510

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

No markings in A

L.H. dots & slurs in GE1 (→FE)

L.H. slurs & dots in EE

L.H. slurs & dots in GE2
..

In the Chopinesque notation, the articulation markings placed over the part of the R.H. are binding also for the L.H. in this context. Due to this reason, we give this undoubtedly authentic notation of A in the main text. At the same time, it is consistent, since the passage in bars 503-505 also has a slur only over the R.H. On the other hand, the authenticity of the slurs and dots added in GE1 (→FE→EE) cannot be entirely excluded, since such separate markings for the L.H. were also sometimes used by Chopin. The fact that the markings appear at the beginning of the bar and not from the moment of the R.H. passing to the upper stave suggests, according to us, that the additions were performed by the reviser.
In FE, the markings of the L.H. were reproduced with minor inaccuracies in bars 507-508. The irregularities were removed in EE, in which a slur leading to the 1st note in bar 507 was added. The marks added in GE2 in bar 506 cannot be authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 507-509

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

Dashes in A & GE2

No dashes in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Just like in bars 498-501, GE1 (→FE→EE) overlooked the dashes marking the range of the dynamic change.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 511-514

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

No markings in A

4  in GE

2  in FE (→EE)

1  suggested by the editors
..

It is uncertain how the version of GE came to life, yet it is difficult to imagine that it could have come from Chopin in this form. This version was probably based on the conviction that the dynamics of the last chords has to be indicated in the piano part, too, which eventually led to the repetition of the markings written in Morch, not by Chopin. The completion of the piano part could have been ordered by the reviser, although one cannot exclude that the action could have been inspired by Chopin. In the second case, the composer probably had one  in mind, which the overzealous engraver, inspired by the notation of Morch, repeated three more times. This scenario seems to be confirmed by a Chopinesque proofreading of FE (→EE), in which two out of four  markings were removed. According to us, the second mark (in bar 512) was left by inadvertence or in order to avoid excessive corrections in the corner of the plate, hence in the main text we suggest a  only in bar 511. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 514

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

Octave in A (→GE1)

Single note in FE (→EE)

Tied octave in GE2
..

The version of FE (→EE) must be a mistake, perhaps a side effect of removing . The version of GE2 is a routine unreasonable revision. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions