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

Verbal indications

b. 1

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

simplice ma graziosamente in A (→GE)

simplice ma grazioso in FE

simplice ma grazioso in EE
..

The use of the adverb suffix -mente was characteristic for pieces of young Chopin. In the main text, we include the proofreading – probably by Chopin – in FE (→EE). In EE, in addition, the older, obsolete form simplice was replaced with its contemporary counterpart semplice.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 16

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

No marking in sources

[] suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest  written by Chopin in analogous bar 340. It is highly likely that omission of this indication in the discussed bar was not intended by the composer, but resulted from distraction at the transition to a new page of the manuscript.  

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 30-32

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

..

The  signs in FE in bars 30 and 32 are placed so inaccurately that one could have an impression that they apply to the 3rd beat of the bar together with the accents.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 41

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

in A (→GE)

No marking in FE (→EE)
..

The missing  is most probably an oversight of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 78-79

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

 i  in A

> &  in GE1 & EE

 &  in FE

 &  in GE2

Our alternative suggestion – 
..

In the main text we give dynamic markings of A, which are unquestionable, as far as sources and music are concerned. In this context, the markings of GE1 (→FE →EE) – two subsequent  signs – are illogical to such an extent that one could suspect a mistake. In fact, taking into account the fact that  in bar 79 is poorly visible in A, it seems to be highly likely that  in this place resulted from an erroneous interpretation of A (the shape of the sign in A is one of the numerous arguments for Chopin's haste, increasing as he was writing A). In turn,  added at the beginning of bar 78 may be interpreted as an attempt to rectify the mistake from bar 79 – Chopin may have wanted to move  to bar 78, where it would not collide so strikingly with its original, and perhaps the only, dynamic concept, written in A. It would be an example of unfinished proofreading, in which a new sign was added without having deleted the old one. We give the version, perhaps intended by Chopin, as an alternative suggestion.
We consider the sign visible in A at the beginning of bar 78 – same as in bar 70 – to be a long accent. In this case, it was reproduced in GE1 as a short accent, whereas in GE2 – as a short . It is unclear how the sign appeared in EE, being absent in FE. The accent was most probably overlooked in FE, whereas in EE it was added by analogy with bar 70 – the hairpin is longer there, but the reviser could have been impelled to shorten it by the absence of a note on the 3rd beat of the bar. A strong argument for such an explanation is the revision of EE in bar 70, going in an opposite direction, since it added  drawn from here.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Inaccuracies in A , Partial corrections