mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in A

b. 4-28

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

 in bar 12 in A (→GE→FE)

  in bar 12 in EE

Pedalling in bars 4, 12 & 28 suggested by the editors
..

The missing pedalling in bars 4 and 28 seems to be an inaccuracy of notation. In the first two bars, Chopin characteristically diversifies the performance – with or without pedal – depending on whether the crotchets creating a spread chord can be held with hand or not. It is possible that he considered the use of the same pedalling two bars further to be obvious (cf. the adjacent note). In the recapitulation (bars 325-336), respective bars appear twice (bars 328 and 336), both times with pedalling. The  sign is also in bar 12, which confirms that performing those bars without pedal was not Chopin's intention. Therefore, in the main text we suggest adding both the  sign in bar 12 and both signs in bars 4 and 28.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 4-28

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

No slurs in A

Slurs in bars 12 & 28 in GE1 (→FE)

3 slurs in EE

3 slurs in GE2
..

In bars 4, 12 and 28 there are no slurs in the part of the L.H. in A. These are the same bars in which pedalling signs are missing. While writing the fourth, last bar of the accompaniment based on alternating use of two schemes, Chopin could have already been thinking about the next bar, structured differently. In GE1 (→FE) slurs were added in bars 12 and 28, in both cases repeating a slur used two bars earlier (in particular in bar 12 the erroneous slur from bar 10 was repeated). According to us, it indicates an action of the reviser. In EE and GE2 a slur was added also in bar 4, whereas in GE2 the slur in bar 12 was corrected. We give the last version in the main text, since the absence of slurs in the discussed bars must be an inaccuracy of notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 11

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

Sixth in A & GE2

f2 in GE1

a1-f2 in FE (→EE)
..

The a1-f2 grace note is written inaccurately in A – the fragment of the stem combining both notes of the sixth is missing. It most probably contributed to the omission of the bottom note, a1, in GE1. The mistake was corrected by Chopin in FE (→EE) analogously to bar 27, a solution we adopt in the main text. The version of A can be considered an equal variant, since, although being earlier, it was never directly replaced by Chopin.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

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

b. 105

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

Long accent in A

Short accent in GE (→FE→EE)
..

It is uncertain which type of accent Chopin considered here – the sign is significantly shorter than the next accent and a few others, but the difference to those in bars 99 and 102 is very small. Taking into account the syncopated nature of this minim and the fact that all surrounding long accents concern minims or minim-long motifs, we deem it to be long. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in A