mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 219

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

 above staff in A

 between staves in GE (→FE)

No mark in EE
..

Moving the  sign under the stave and shifting it to the beginning of the bar must be arbitrary changes of GE (→FE). Both changes considered together impede the correct interpretation of this sign, which applies to the top notes of the figuration in the R.H., separated with additional crotchet stems. The absence of the sign in EE is probably a result of a revision – it was assumed that there is no need to double diminuendo signs. See also bar 220.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 220

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

Repeated octave in A

Repeated f in GE

Tied octave in FE (→EE)
..

In A, the slur over the F-f octave has undoubtedly a motivic meaning, same as the slur in the previous bar. With the change of direction of the stems, in GE the slur was moved under the notes and placed in such a way that it became a tie sustaining the bottom note of the octaves, F. The erroneous version was corrected in FE (→EE) – probably by Chopin – to another version, which, being the latest, we adopt to the main text. One can ponder whether Chopin would change it if GE1 would not have distorted the notation of A (apart from the change of the nature of the slur, the  sign was overlooked). Anyway, the version of A, certainly authentic, can be taken into consideration when performing the Concerto.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Placement of markings , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 220

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

 above staff in A

 between staves in GE

No mark in FE (→EE)
..

Same as in the previous bar, the  sign was moved to between the staves and slightly shifted (this time to the right). The absence of the sign in FE (→EE) can be explained by an oversight; however, it cannot be excluded that Chopin removed the hairpin as a part of the proofreading of the part of the L.H. According to us, even if it were Chopin's proofreading, it did not concern the sign written in A, applying only to the part of the R.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 222-223

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

Continuous slur in A

2 slurs in GE (→FE→EE)
..

Breaking the slur – contrary to the unmistakable notation of A – is an inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1, who did not take care of an appropriate extension of the slur at the end of the line (in bar 222) and an earlier start at the beginning of the next one (in bar 223).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 225-227

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

Continuous slur in A & GE2

3 slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The division of the slur into 3 parts – contrary to the unmistakable notation of A – is an example of a characteristic manner of the engraver of GE1, who avoided long slurs. GE2 restored the notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions