mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 29-32

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

4 long accents in A

 & different accents in GE1

 & long accents in FE

 & accents on 2nd beat in EE

4 short accents in GE2
..

The notation of accents in A is clear and unambiguous – four long accents on the 3rd beat of each of the bars. In spite of this, the editions did not faithfully reproduce both the placement and the length of the signs. All changes in GE1 and FE are undoubtedly of an accidental nature, which, with a tightly packed text, leads to confusion and impedes the interpretation and reproduction of their notation. Sometimes, the accents start so close to  that it seems that both signs constitute a pair, accenting one strike together (Chopin would often use such combinations, but in this case A excludes such understanding of these signs). In FE, such pairs were placed so inaccurately that in bars 30 and 32  signs seem to fall only on the 3rd beat of the bar. EE homogenised the notation of bars 30-32, considering the entire  pairs to be applying to the 2nd beat; the kind of employed accents is unobvious, but they are longer than, e.g. the signs in bars 24-26 and 28. GE2 reproduces the notation of A, only replacing long accents with short ones.
Similar ambiguities and distortions of notation are present also in bars 369-375.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 53-54

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

Short accents in A & GE2

Possible long accents in A

Accent in bar 53 in GE1

No accents in FE (→EE)
..

It is not entirely certain what kind of accents Chopin had in mind after  marks. The accents are longer than those in bars 57-58, yet it does not seem that it would be a significant difference. In turn, they are clearly different than the typical long accent in bar 55. Since the accents in analogous bars 57-58, 397-398 and 401-402 are clearly short, in the main text we adopt short accents. Subsequent omissions of accents in GE1 and FE (→EE) are most probably mistakes.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE

b. 55

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

Long accent in A

 in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Short accent in GE2
..

The sign in A is undoubtedly a long accent on the 2nd beat of the bar, although due to the crossing-out in the part of the R.H., its relation to the corrected chord partly disappeared. It was most probably the reason for the erroneous reproduction of the sign in GE1 (→FE→EE) as a whole-bar  hairpin. GE2 deciphered the sign's function correctly, but not the kind of the used accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 65

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

Long accent in A

 in GE1

 in FE

 in EE & GE2
..

The sign in A is a typical long accent. In GE1 it was moved to the end of the triplet, so it is unknown which note it concerns (the engraver most probably considered it a  hairpin). In the remaining editions, the placement and size of the sign were subject to further arbitrary changes although the notations of EE and GE2 are generally similar to the notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 82

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

L.H. long accent in A

R.H. short accent in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The accent in A is not unequivocal as such, hence its interpretation in GE (→FE→EE) as a short accent for the R.H. is not conspicuous. However, a comparison with the notation of analogous bars resolves the doubt in the favour of a long accent over the L.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions