mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Partial corrections

b. 5-6

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

Tied crotchet f1 in A & GE2

Tied minim f1 in GE1

No crotchet f1 in chord in EE
..

The version of GE1 (→FE) generally indicates the same performance as the version of A – the f1 crotchet in the last chord in bar 5 is not tied, hence it is to be played, whereas it is the minim in bar 6 that is to be sustained. This kind of unclear notation must be a mistake, yet it is uncertain whether the mistake was committed at the time of engraving the text of A or at the time of implementing the proofreading ordered by Chopin. If we assume that only a part of the ordered corrections was implemented – a dot extending the minim in bar 5 and a longer tie were added, whereas f1 was not removed from the chord on the 3rd crotchet of the bar – the aim of a possible proofreading could have been the version given in EE. In the face of the above doubts, in the main text we present the correct text of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections

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. 282

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

..

FE1 has an a1-c2 third on the 1st quaver. It is a perfect example of an unfinished proofreading, where the correct note was printed without having removed the erroneous one. The mistake was corrected in FE2 (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , Partial corrections