mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 30-32

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

Small notes in A & GE2

Regular notes in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Small notes suggested by the editors
..

The simplified notation of A, in which the dyads of the orchestral accompaniment of the solo part are separated only by a smaller font, confused the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE), who, not having noticed the difference in the size of the notes, engraved entire chords in a normal font. In FE in bars 374-376, not only did Chopin correct this mistake, but he also differentiate between the solo part and the accompaniment in a clearer manner. We employ the latter, being the latest and constituting a significant improvement, also here. A text of the solo part compliant with Chopin's intention appeared in print for the first time in the National Edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 157-158

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

a1 repeated in A (→GE1 →FE)

a1 tied in EE & GE2
..

The missing tie of a1 is almost certainly a mistake of Chopin, who did not introduce the changes performed in the R.H. to the L.H. It seems that a1(2) at the beginning of bar 158 was to be originally repeated – the crotchet in the part of the R.H. was even provided with a staccato dot, deleted then probably when a tie was added. This scenario is confirmed also by the dots over the crotchets at the end of bar 157 – see the note dedicated to them. A tie was added in EE and GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors of A , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 344

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

Dotted rhythm in A

Quavers in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The dotted rhythm in A is the original version (cf. analogous bar 20), left here by Chopin, perhaps unintentionally. Therefore, the quavers in GE (→FE→EE) may be a result of Chopin's proofreading, although the absence of visible traces of performing changes in print allows us to consider a possible mistake of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 416

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

g1 in chord in A (→GE)

e1 in chord in FE (→EE)
..

The version of A (→GE) is most probably the original review of this chord, left by inadvertence (haste). It is proved by the undoubtedly Chopinesque proofreading of FE (→EE) and by the corrections visible in A in the repetition of this bar (bar 456).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 462-463

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

Slur to c3 in A

Slur to d3 in GE (→EE→EE)
..

The slur in the R.H. starting in bar 462 reaches only the last note in this bar in A. It is almost certainly a trace of the original notation, which is supported by an extension of the slur in an analogous situation one bar earlier. Chopin's oversight was corrected already in GE1, most probably by the composer himself. At the same time, the visible traces of corrections in print prove that it was different slurs than in A that were subject to proofreading – it is likely that initially each of bars 461-464 was encompassed with a separate, whole-bar slur (bar 462 certainly was).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1