Editorial Conception of the Scores in the same salons.

He travelled beyond Warsaw (to Strzyżewo, Antonin,

Poturzyn). If we add to this the dozen or so smaller scale works that he
of Fryderyk Chopin’s Concertos wrote during this period, it seems reasonable to ask how he could
have found time to do everything. After all, the very composition of
The orchestral scores of Chopin’s Concertos are one of the most large forms, in which he was not yet greatly experienced, and their cor-
difficult editorial challenges to publishers of his works. There are two rection must have consumed a lot of this time (‘I do not want anyone’s
main reasons for these difficulties: verdict on the Rondo [of the Concerto in F minor] since I am still not quite
— the lack of sources that one could regard in their entirety and with- 2
pleased with it’ ). How to fit in here the instrumentation for the whole
out reservation as transmitting Chopin’s text, orchestra, including dense tutti, transpositions, etc., in which he was
— the unquestionable participation of foreign hands at various stages also less than well-versed? A simple conclusion presents itself: someone
in the forming of the instrumentation of the Concertos. must have helped him. He could have sought this assistance among col-
Judging by the extant sources for earlier concert works by Cho- leagues from Elsner’s class more skilled in instrumentation. A few such
pin (Opp. 2, 13 and 14), we might have expected some sketches and names crop up in his correspondence. ‘Linowski is copying hurriedly, but
original, working versions of the scores to exist. Yet no autograph of 3
he has already started the Rondo [of the Concerto in E minor]’. Compar-
this type – discounting a bar-and-a-half sketch of a fragment from mvt. I ing the dates, however, one concludes that this probably referred to the
of the Concerto in F minor – has survived. The fact that the Concertos parts. One interesting item, albeit rather vague, was recorded by F.
were performed with orchestra indicates the existence of fair copies of Hoesick: ’[Chopin] allowed Ignacy Dobrzyński to “transinstrument” both
the scores and orchestral parts from which Chopin played both these Concertos. Both scores have been lost. I am grateful for this detail to
works in Warsaw, and subsequently on his first appearances abroad; this 4
Director Adam Münchheimer’. He further quotes Münchheimer: ‘From
1
is confirmed by mentions in his correspondence (‘the scores bound’ ). the lips of the late Ignacy Feliks Dobrzyński I heard that he instrumented
These manuscripts have also disappeared, a loss which is felt most both the maestro’s Concertos while the composer was still alive’.
5
acutely by editors, since the extant later sources based (not always However, no additional information on this matter has come to light.
directly) on these manuscripts – the orchestra part of the ‘semiauto- References to progress on the Concertos are accompanied in the
graph’ of the F minor Concerto and the printed parts of the first letters by the motif of haste. Following a sojourn at the Radziwiłłs’ resi-
French edition of the E minor Concerto – were produced essentially dence in Antonin, he wrote: ‘my Concerto [in F minor] is not yet finished,
without Chopin’s participation; one can only presume that they contain
and, impatiently awaiting the completion of its finale, has impelled me
some occasional, minor alterations by the composer. The lack of these 6
to leave this paradise’, and three months later, now on the Concerto
sources is compensated for, albeit to a certain degree only, by the 7
in E minor ‘[…] the task is urgent, I have to write in a hurry’.
extant piano reductions of the accompaniments to mvts. II and III of
Taken together, all these arguments point to the likely participation
both Concertos, allowing for some approximate reconstructions to be
of foreign hands in the very first scores, although the lack of sources
made. These are a photograph of a reduction prepared by Fontana,
makes it difficult to point to places where this interference may have
doubtless from the above-mentioned fair copy of the score of the Con-
occurred and to establish its scale. Whatever the case may be, the ex-
certo in F minor, and two reductions (of the whole orchestra and the
pression of doubt as to whether Chopin wrote out the entirety of the first
wind section) written out by Franchomme, most probably from manu-
scores of the Concertos in his own hand can be regarded as justified.
script orchestral materials (parts) of the Concerto in E minor.
Certain changes were most probably also made to the instru-
The orchestration of the Concertos in the form transmitted to us
mentation of the Concertos during the periods preceding their publication
by the scores compiled from the parts of the first editions betrays certain
(amendments to and expansion of the parts of the double basses and the
features alien to Chopin’s musical thinking. These features become
violas, numerous supplements to the wind instrument parts). Such is in-
manifest primarily on comparing the orchestra part with piano reduc-
dicated by a comparison of the extant orchestral material with the Fonta-
tions of the tutti undoubtedly prepared by Chopin or with the solo part.
na and Franchomme reductions. It is almost certain that Chopin’s partici-
These are the following:
pation in these alterations was insignificant and occasional in character.
― the shifting of the centre of gravity of the sound of the orchestra
Thus, the incompleteness of the sources and the resultant im-
towards the middle register, to the detriment of the melody line;
possibility of specifying the exact relationships between them create
― the lowering and doubling of the bass line, deforming Chopin’s
a situation in which we are sometimes certain that foreign hands have
conception of the ‘sound field’;
been involved in a given place, yet unsure as to the moment when this
― the overlapping of the group of instruments ending a phrase with
occurred, and utterly unable to indicate who may have been responsible.
the group beginning a new phrase, which is a device characteristic of
fully fledged romantic instrumentation; such ‘splices’ are particularly ***
suspicious when the Chopin reduction shows in a new phrase the names The full scores of both Concertos were issued in print by the publi-
of the instruments or a change in dynamics and character (e.g. Violini, shers of their piano scores and orchestral parts: the Concerto in F minor
dolce); Chopin preferred the juxtaposition of groups, cf. e.g. the openings by Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig (two editions, 1865-1866 and 1879), and
of mvt. II of the F minor Concerto and mvt. III of the E minor Concerto; the Concerto in E minor by the firm of F. Kistner in Leipzig (two editions,
― the excessive use of tremolando in the strings; c. 1866 and 1875), and subsequently by Breitkopf & Härtel (1880). The
― the tying notes of the same pitch on every occasion; first printed scores were compiled from the parts printed by the firm in
― the long-held notes of the string accompaniment (in the semiauto- question, with some errors corrected and alterations made – not infre-
graph of the F minor Concerto one finds several corrections, in the quently crucial – in the performance markings. Subsequent editions of
composer’s hand, involving their shortening or separation with rests, each Concerto were essentially based on their predecessors, with some
mvt. I bars 104, 137, 247-248, 294, mvt. II bars 79-80); errors corrected, others repeated, and further changes effected. The
― contradictions of harmony, dynamics and articulation compared final editions, by Breitkopf & Härtel, function to the present day on con-
with the authentic part of the solo piano; cert platforms around the world, regarded as the ‘original’ scores.
― the inconsistent marking of articulation. For over 150 years, this group of nineteenth-century scores has
This enables one to draw the conclusion that some foreign hands shaped the attitudes of musicians towards the accompaniments of
probably helped to impart to the score the form which we know today. Chopin’s Concertos, as well as performance traditions and the tastes
Investigation into the historical circumstances of the period during which of audiences.
these works were written indicates that the influence of his collaborators As early as the first orchestral performance in Paris of mvt. I
may be manifest from the very first Warsaw scores. of the E minor Concerto (20 May 1832; Chopin had already played
One deduces from Chopin’s letters that the composing of the two the Concerto in February of that year, with great success, yet this was
Concertos and the preparation of the accompanying orchestral materi- a solo rendition or with quintet accompaniment) a disproportion was
als necessary for public performance took him about one year. We also noticed between the sound of the solo part and that of the accompa-
know that during this time he carried on a normal social life, attended niment. The reviewer of the daily Le Temps wrote: ‘The first movement
operatic productions and concerts in artistic salons, and held rehearsals of the Concerto made a greater impression in the private concerts. This
8
of chamber works by himself and by others, prior to their performance must be ascribed […] to a certain heaviness of the accompaniment […]’.

2
 Editorial Conception

A few days later, F.-J. Fétis expressed a very similar view: ‘This time All those undertaking such adaptations endeavoured to reduce the
the performance was not received so well, which should undoubtedly chasm separating the brilliant piano parts and the orchestra parts
9
be attributed to the thick instrumentation […]’. through the enhancement of the sound and the forces of the orchestra
Considerable influence on the opinions of professional circles with (sometimes by the use of as many as three trombones), which occasion-
regard to the accompaniments to Chopin’s Concertos may have been ally even necessitated the virtuosic expansion of the piano texture (!).
exerted by two figures: H. Berlioz, the great symphonist of the Romantic It was always the same anachronism, the changes being made in the
era and author of the Traité d’instrumentation et d’orchestration mo- direction of the orchestral sonorities achieved during the times of the
dernes, and F. Niecks, the author of a valuable biography – one of the authors of the adaptations, who lived many years after Chopin, in the
first – of Chopin (1888). Berlioz, contrary to his earlier enthusiastic re- period of the great development of symphonic music. It is not surprising,
view of a performance by Chopin with orchestra of the Romance from the then, that these efforts did not find acceptance, and this direction in the
10
E minor Concerto , made the famous remark: ‘The whole charm of Cho- search for a solution to the problem was deemed, it would seem, to
pin’s works is focussed on the piano part; the orchestra of his Concertos lead to nowhere.
11
is nothing more than a cold and virtually useless accompaniment’. ***
Niecks’s opinion, meanwhile, read thus: ‘[…] Chopin’s originality is gone Since the mid twentieth century, a certain interest has been
12
as soon as he writes for another instrument than the pianoforte‘. shown in the problem of the accompaniments to Chopin’s Concertos,
Reservations with regard to the orchestration of the accompa- giving rise to objective attempts to revise widely held views regarding
niments were also not lacking among Polish musicians. Here is the this area of his output. The authors of works on this subject – the Kraków
opinion of W. Żeleński: ‘In the Concertos we are not satisfied with the musicologist A. Frączkiewicz and the English musicologist G. Abraham
orchestral part. For whilst the solo part is supremely beautiful and – endeavour to set Chopin’s instrumentation within its historical context.
colourful in its detail, the orchestra fails to provide adequate support, They draw attention above all to the fact that during the period preced-
thus not only does it not enhance our interest, it rather diminishes and ing the writing of the Concertos Chopin was familiar with the Concertos
13
frustrates it’. Few observers rated the orchestral parts highly. of neither Mozart nor Beethoven, and that his models were solely con-
All this has contributed to the creation of a certain stereotype certos written in the virtuoso style brillant by Hummel, Moscheles, Ries
of Chopin as an artist marked by the genius of ‘pianoforte thinking’ but and Field (Chopin himself played Concertos by Gyrovetz and Kalkbren-
devoid of the skill of ‘orchestral thinking’. ner). They concur that he could not have taken a more thoroughgoing
Regardless of the fact that no-one has taken the trouble to estab- knowledge of the art of instrumentation from his teacher, Józef Els-
16
lish whether Chopin himself was responsible for all the shortcomings in ner ..‘[Chopin’s orchestration] is much more individual than is com-
the score, the authors of negative evaluations of the accompaniments monly assumed; it is markedly superior to that of his Polish predeces-
have committed the notorious error of anachronism, presuming the sor or that of his Western models Field and Hummel. It is limited in
norm to be solely their own orchestral thinking, i.e. thinking in terms of scope, yet so far as it goes it is always adequate, except in the thick
the greatest development of symphonic music of the Romantic era. tuttis, and sometimes much more than adequate – bold or delicate and
17
The accusation that Chopin was bereft of orchestral thinking is poetically imaginative [...]’ .
sufficiently weighty to warrant a number of digressions. One may gen- Let us add a few more facts. Firstly, the Concertos were rarely
erally doubt the existence of an objective notion of ‘orchestral thinking’. performed by the full forces in Warsaw while Chopin was residing there.
It was once said in respect to the orchestrations of J. S. Bach that They were more frequently played in private drawing-rooms with quartet
‘he did not instrument, he registered’, in other words his thinking was accompaniment. Secondly, Chopin held the majority of rehearsals of
organ-orchestra orientated. Even if this opinion is too far-reaching the Concertos with incomplete forces. He wrote the following to a friend:
a generalisation, one can certainly find this phenomenon in some of his ‘I rehearsed my Concerto [in E minor] with a quartet […] I shall write
compositions. Haydn and Mozart, as well as Beethoven in his early you next week how it will sound with an orchestra […] Tomorrow I want
18
works, applied quartet-orchestra thinking. Perhaps Chopin represented to do it once more with the quartet’; " four days later: ‘Today I am
piano-orchestra thinking. If so, let us enquire in which sources this is rehearsing the second Concerto [in E minor] with the whole orchestra,
19
best expressed. with the exception of trumpets and kettle-drums’ . There was little time
This question may be answered by an event from the Paris period left for rehearsals with the really full orchestra. Thirdly, Chopin never
of Chopin’s life. In 1842, he organised in his own drawing-room a recital heard his Concertos from outside the orchestra, from the perspective of
by his brilliant 12-year-old pupil Carl Filtsch, preparing with him the first the concert hall, and therefore he could not have checked the sound
movement of the Concerto in E minor. As another Chopin pupil, W. von proportions between particular instruments and sections.
Lenz, relates, ‘When he finally allowed Filtsch to play the whole work Niecks’s idea that Chopin’s imagination was limited to the sound
[…], the Master declared: “You have prepared this movement so splen- of a single instrument – the pianoforte – also fails to withstand scrutiny.
didly that we can perform it: I shall be your orchestra”. […] Chopin re- It is contradicted by facts from Chopin’s biography, by his output and
created the whole well-devised, ephemeral instrumentation of this com- comments. He was interested in other instruments from his schoolboy
position in his incomparable accompaniment. He played by heart. years. At Szafarnia (1824) he played a ‘basetla’ [a folk instrument
14
Never before have I heard anything to equal the first tutti [...]’ . This is similar to a cello], and this was most probably also where he wrote an
borne out by a description of a Chopin accompaniment recorded by his earlier version of the Mazurka in A minor (Op. 7 No. 2), in which he
pupil C. O'Méara-Dubois: ‘Chopin had always a cottage piano by the imitates traditional folk bagpipes, or ‘dudy’. He played the organ. He
side of the grand piano on which he gave his lessons. It was marvel- tried out a newly constructed instrument (the aeolopantalon), for which
lous to hear him accompany, no matter what compositions, from the he even wrote two minor pieces (both unfortunately lost). He admired
15
concertos of Hummel to those of Beethoven’ . the playing of Paganini, and also of the Czech violinist Josef Slavik,
The accounts of firsthand witnesses with Chopin’s own words with whom he wanted to compose variations on a theme by Beethoven.
quoted therein seem most illustrative of his piano-orchestra thinking, On Joseph Merck he wrote: ‘He is the first cellist whom I adore close
20
giving the lie to Berlioz‘s opinion of ‘cold and virtually useless accom- up’ . He admired the technical and expressive possibilities of bügel-
paniments’. Meanwhile, to the question as to where this thinking is best horns. His correspondence is also not lacking in statements of a more
documented, there exists only one reply: in the piano reductions pre- general nature: ‘Le Comte Ory [an opera by Rossini, 1828] is pleasant,
21
pared by the composer. particularly the instrumentation and choruses’ .
Chopin’s alleged lack of skill in writing for the orchestra also led Yet the range of his interests is most eloquently expressed by his
to a certain phenomenon probably hitherto not encountered on such orchestral and chamber works from this period. The way in which he
a scale in the history of music. Between the late nineteenth century and deploys solo wind instruments in compositions with orchestra testifies
the mid twentieth century numerous adaptations were produced with to his excellent feel for their tonal and expressive capacities. When
22
the aim of ‘refining’ the accompaniments to Chopin’s Concertos. referring to the Trio, Op. 8 , in his correspondence he considers the
Among those responsible were Klindworth, Münchheimer, Balakirev, idea of replacing the violin with viola. In another letter he describes the
23
Tausig, Burmeister (whose arrangement was used by I. J. Paderewski construction and action of mutes , which indicates that this was a new
in performing the F minor Concerto), Cortot, Reichwein, and Fitelberg. orchestral device; Chopin’s stressing of the imperative of their use in

3
Editorial Conception

the Concerto in E minor shows how important a musical role they played Since the 'concert' scores are an editorial form specific to NE
24
for him (‘[…] without them the Adagio would fail’ – he wrote to a friend ). and preferred by our editorial team as the basis for performance (hence
Finally, the bold use of effects and instruments rarely employed at that the name), this type will be discussed at greater length and in the first
time (col legno and cor de signal in the F minor Concerto) show that instance. We will attempt to make our initial, broad editorial assumptions
Chopin kept abreast of innovations in instrumentation. It would also be more specific, employing the experience acquired in the process of edit-
no exaggeration to state that the recitative from the Larghetto of the ing the previously published volumes, particularly the Concertos in their
F minor Concerto is one of the most beautiful orchestral pages in the versions for piano.
history of the piano concerto, whilst of symbolic significance in this re- ***
spect is the fact that the last work destined by the composer for print A discussion of the principles behind the editing of the ‘concert’
was the Sonata for piano and cello. scores must begin with the signalling of yet another issue, at once both
Thus we note a contradiction between the common stereotype historical and practical in nature, namely the d i f f e r e n c e i n s o n o r -
of Chopin as incapable of thinking orchestrally, or in terms of the sound i t y between the orchestras of Chopin’s times and modern-day or-
of instruments other than the pianoforte, and his actual leanings and chestras.
achievements. The particular sections of the orchestra possessed different forces
In considering Chopin’s attitude towards his orchestra, E. Zimmer- and tonal proportions, and the instruments different technical capacities.
mann, editor of Chopin’s works at Henle-Verlag, addresses, albeit in E.g. in the line-up of orchestras from those times the flutes possessed
quite general terms, the problem of the interference of foreign hands in a more distinctive sound, whereas in our orchestras in the passages
Chopin’s scores. He draws a ‘provocative’ – as he terms it – conclusion above the strings or between tutti chords they are often inaudible
from the disappearance of the earliest written sources: ‘I consider it (e.g. Concerto in E minor, mvt. I, bars 99-103 and analogous bars, mvt.
a curious fact that 150 years after these works were composed we are III, bar 111). The trombone, whose principal task was to reinforce the
not in a position to state with the utmost certainty whether even one bass line, rather sparse in those days, in present-day orchestras some-
single note in the orchestral parts of both Concertos, in the version in times sounds too distinct. In earlier scores we encounter bars filled with
25
which we hear them today, actually comes from Chopin himself’ . (This rests which at first glance are incomprehensible to us today, in places
is, however, contradicted by the indications for the entries of instru- where Chopin wrote notes in the reduction, i.e. notes which he expressly
ments written by Chopin into the piano reductions.) He leaves un- intended. These notes were unplayable on the natural French horns of
answered the question: ‘Could it be that Chopin wrote the whole piano those times (e.g. Concerto in F minor, mvt. I, bar 262), yet present no
part – therefore with the reduced orchestral places – and then, making difficulties for modern chromatic French horns. The contrary is some-
use of this basic material, someone else (who?) instrumented the work? times also the case, e.g. the highest notes played by trumpets in E
Or were there perhaps some sketches, plans or even a prepared in- used by Chopin are impossible to perform on the trumpets in B em-
26 ployed today (e.g. Concerto in E minor, mvt. III, bar 107).
strumentation by Chopin himself […]?’ . Later, when characterising the
The primary sources for the ‘concert’ scores are the piano reduc-
printed scores, he writes: ‘In the middle of the last [nineteenth] century
tions written in Chopin’s hand and corrected by him in the first editions.
changes appear to have begun in the conditions under which musical
In these, of particular value are the indications as to the entries of
works were published. Composers of classical-romantic repertoire, who
particular instruments. Next are the piano reductions of Fontana and
previously often participated themselves in the preparation of the first
Franchomme, which allow us to reconstruct the state of the scores
editions of their works, slowly departed the scene, and the editorial
prior to the final phase of changes, doubtless introduced under the
work passed into other hands. Now contradictions were discovered,
influence of the publishers.
alleged or genuine errors. […] At this time texts began to be polished
27 However, these sources are not wholly adequate (e.g. the lack of
up, retouched, adjusted and unified’ .
the first movement of the Concertos in Fontana and Franchomme, the
*** lack of a detailed layout of the instruments in the full tutti). Hence our
It is not the intention of the National Edition editorial team to further recourse to an examination of the internal musical traits of the
evaluate Chopin’s skills as the composer of orchestral parts. It is suffi- accompaniments, perceived from a number of perspectives.
cient for us to express our conviction of his excellent predispositions for Let us pose three questions:
employing the orchestra in works for piano and orchestra. The full devel- — If Chopin turned to his collaborators with the instrumentation of the
opment of these skills was hampered by factors for which he was not accompaniments, then which parts would he have entrusted to them
culpable: gaps in his musical education, a lack of models of a higher above all?
calibre and the editorial customs of the day. — Which parts have aroused the most reservations?
It is the task of the editors, meanwhile, to present the most au- — Which parts require modification due to the different sonority of the
thentic forms possible of the scores of both Concertos in such a way as orchestras of Chopin’s times?
to provide the opportunity of hearing them – as far as is possible – just The answer to the first question is as follows: Chopin would have
as Chopin himself wished them to be heard, and by the same stroke delegated above all the instrumentation of the full tutti, as these are the
help to shape true judgments concerning their significance for the his- most time-consuming fragments (the number of instruments, the trans-
tory of this genre of music. positions, the need for a skilled hand in the vertical layout of the instru-
*** ments). Next he would have entrusted his assistants with the ‘routine’
So we have at our disposal on the one hand the orchestral ma- harmonic backgrounds in the quintet, requiring no great invention.
terial appended to the solo part prepared for print by Chopin – the The answer to the second question is surprisingly convergent
complete material, albeit contaminated by the participation of foreign with the answer to the first. The most heavily and commonly criticized
hands, not supervised by Chopin – and on the other hand sources parts are the tutti. ‘[...] In the tuttis, […] Chopin’s orchestration is most dull
closer to the composer’s intentions or even authentic, although only and conventional […]. It is the thick, unimaginative scoring of the opening
indirectly concerning the orchestra part. As far back as the 1970s, tuttis of the two Concertos that has done more harm than anything else to
28
when the NE editorial committee was commencing its work, this situ- Chopin’s reputation as an orchestrator’. One also reads: ‘Chopin’s or-
ation led me to put forward the idea of two types of score for each of chestration is less felicitous, as it is frequently scarce, without the
the Concertos, which would take account of all the editorial problems exploitation of instrumental effects and without symphonic import.
connected with the accompaniments. This distinction was initially rather Chopin usually gives a quartet ground in drawn-out notes. It is weari-
29
vague. The ‘concert’ score was to be as close as possible to Chopin’s some’. These opinions were not and are not isolated, and – with
orchestral thinking and serve concert performance, whilst the ‘historical’ hindsight – can be deemed objective.
score, prepared from materials intended by Chopin for print, was to There is no question, however, that the thematic and contrapuntal
constitute a record of the extant source orchestral material, with all its parts entrusted by Chopin to the wind instruments are employed by him
baggage of foreign accretions. Essential conditions with both types of with a great sensitivity to colour, register and character, and are gener-
score were that they be rooted in sources and that the editing methods ally precisely indicated in the reduction. Let us quote once more the
be appropriately selected. opinion of G. Abraham: ‘As we shall see, it is precisely in his treatment of

4
 Editorial Conception

30
the wind that Chopin is at his most poetic as an orchestrator‘. One must ***
also not forget that Chopin entrusts a long thematic phrase in the end- The sources for the ‘historical’ scores are the oldest homogenous
ing of mvt. II of the E minor Concerto to the violins, which the piano written or printed orchestra parts, i.e. the ‘semi-autograph’ in the case
accompanies with a delicate figuration. of the F minor Concerto, and for the E minor Concerto, due to the lack
These observations allow us to establish with great likelihood the of a score, the orchestral parts of the first French edition.
scale of the authenticity of Chopin’s hand in the orchestral parts: The editorial method consists in giving the text of the source as
— the places where the instrumentation can be ascribed to Chopin with faithfully as possible, with the correction of its evident, mechanical
the g r e a t e s t d e g r e e o f c e r t i t u d e: the indications of instruments errors. However, this simple solution does have the drawback that the
in the piano reduction undoubtedly prepared by Chopin and the solo presented text, although approved for print by Chopin, corresponds
parts of the instruments (thematic and contrapuntal),
only in part to his intentions.
— the places of l e s s c e r t a i n authenticity: the harmonic accompa-
The sound of the ‘historical’ scores is close to that which so far
niments,
has been regarded as fully authentic and which due to the nineteenth-
— the l e a s t c e r t a i n places: dense tutti with the instruments not spe-
century editions, above all those issued by Breitkopf & Härtel, also be-
cified in the reduction.
came fixed in the twentieth-century performance tradition. Thus we find
The above stratification of the texture of the accompaniments
here all those deficiencies criticised for 150 years.
cannot, of course, be effected with absolute accuracy, yet it does allow
us to be bolder in correcting awkwardness in the tutti or in rarefying
or shortening notes held for too long in the strings, since we can be Summary
confident that in interfering in these parts we are not disturbing the Both types of score derive from sources, yet the basic group of
authentic conception of the composer. At the same time, it makes us sources is different for each type.
wary with solo instrument parts. Here we allow ourselves – particularly The ‘concert’ scores are a most particular form of reconstruction.
in the developments of the first movements – to double those thematic The fact that they are based on various types of source allows for slightly
passages which are often barely audible through the dense figuration greater latitude in their interpretation. Yet thanks to the use authentic
of the more powerfully sounding modern-day piano (a procedure in sources, or others directly linked to such, they are closer to the creative
keeping with the concert practice). intentions of the composer.
So as not to disturb in the least the above-mentioned piano- It must be pointed out here that the changes that are manifest
orchestra thinking of Chopin, in making alterations in doubtful places in the ‘concert’ scores in comparison with the ‘historical’ scores tend –
we take as our model similar undoubted places in the Concertos and in contrary to all previous editions and adaptations – towards making the
earlier concert works. Thus we wish to avoid the accusation of adding orchestral parts more chamber-like, more in keeping with a piano part
yet another ‘foreign hand’, in such a way that these corrections might filled with subtle nuances.
be regarded rather as a ‘return to the hand of Chopin’. The ‘historical’ scores are clearer with regard to editorial interfer-
The effects in terms of the sound of the ‘concert’ scores involve ence, yet contaminated by the involvement in the sources of foreign
above all greater clarity in the dense tutti, at times somewhat lighter, hands.
with the point of gravity shifted to the melody line, and a greater trans- Chopin’s presumed attitude towards the two types of score:
parency in the chamber accompaniments. One example here is the — the ‘concert’ scores convey that which Chopin w i s h e d t o b e
atmosphere of the sound of Larghetto from the E minor Concerto, in h e a r d,
31
keeping with Chopin’s description of the mood of this movement and — the ‘historical’ scores show that which, for various reasons, Chopin
with Berlioz’s review. On the other hand, we note an improved audibil- a g r e e d t o h a v e p u b l i s h e d.
ity of the thematic motifs played simultaneously to virtuosic figuration in
the piano. Jan Ekier

1 16
Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 5 Oct 1830; all quotations A. Frączkiewicz, ‘Instrumentacja koncertów Chopina’ [Instrumentation of Chopin’s
from letters by Chopin in Korespondencja Fryderyka Chopina [The Correspon- Concertos], in Muzyka, 3-4 (Warsaw, 1952).
17
dence of Fryderyk Chopin] ed. B. E. Sydow (Warsaw, 1955). G. Abraham, ‘Chopin and the Orchestra’, in The Book of the First International
2
Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 20 Oct. 1829. Musicological Congress Devoted to the Work of Frederick Chopin (Warsaw, 1963),
3
Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 31 Aug. 1830. 87.
4 18
F. Hoesick, Chopin. Życie i twórczość [Chopin. His Life and Work] (Warsaw, Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 18 Sept. 1830.
19
1967), i, 360. Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 22 Sept. 1830.
5 20
ibidem, 360n. Letter to his family in Warsaw, Vienna, 28 May 1831.
6 21
Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 14 Jan. 1830. Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 10 Apr. 1830.
7 22
Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 17 Apr. 1830. Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 31 Aug. 1830.
8 23
Le Temps, 22 May 1832. Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 15 May 1830; see the last
9
Revue Musicale, 26 May 1832. footnote.
10 24
Hector Berlioz, Le Rénovateur, 3 (IV), 5 Jan. 1835: [...] this enchanting work, in which Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 22 Sept. 1830.
25
irresistible charm is combined with most profound religious thought, submerged the E. Zimmermann, ‘Chopin und sein Orchester’, in Chopin Studies, 3 (Warsaw,
listeners in a specific joy – serene and ecstatic […] there is so much simplicity used with 1990), 175.
26
such freshness of imagination, that when the last note was heard, in the manner of ibidem, 177.
27
a pearl cast into a golden vase, the audience, immersed in contemplation, continued to ibidem, 182.
28
listen, and for a few moments restrained itself from applauding. In the same way, while G. Abraham, op. cit., 86.
29
observing the harmonious descent of crepuscular dimness at eventide, we remain A. Münchheimer, in F. Hoesick, op. cit., 360n.
30
motionless in the darkness, with our eyes still focused on that point of the horizon where G. Abraham, op. cit., 85.
31
the light has just faded.” Letter to Tytus Woyciechowski in Poturzyn, Warsaw, 15 May 1830: “The Adagio to
11
H. Berlioz, Mémoires (Paris, 1969), ii, 275. the new Concerto is in E major. It is not supposed to be emphatic, but more in a sen-
12
F. Niecks, Chopin as a Man and Musician (London, 1888), i, 206. timental vein, tranquil and melancholic, and should produce the impression of gazing
13
F. Hoesick, op. cit., 361. at a spot which brings to mind a thousand pleasant memories. – It resembles beauti-
14
W. von Lenz, ‘Uebersichtliche Beurtheilung der Pianoforte-Kompositionen von ful springtime reflections, albeit by moonlight. This is the reason why I accompany it
Chopin [...]’, Neue Berliner Musikzeitung, 4 Sept. 1872. by means of s o r d i n i, in other words, violins muffled with a kind of comb, which,
15
F. Niecks, op. cit, ii, 188. by bestriding the strings, produces a nasal, silvery tone.

5
SOURCE COMMENTARY (ABRIDGED)

Initial remarks mvts. II & III the music written in small notes by Chopin was most
probably emboldened subsequently by the copyist ∗ .
M orch Orchestra part from ½A, written out by an unidentified copyist,
The present commentary concerns the orchestra part alone (the solo part
is discussed in the commentaries to the versions for one piano and with probably on the basis of [SI]. Chopin made here quite numerous
a second piano). It sets out the principles behind the editing of the mu- changes and additions, yet not all the amendments are in his hand
sical text and discusses major discrepancies between sources; in addi- (identification is hindered by the fact that the character of the
tion, it signals the most crucial alterations made to the printed scores of copyist’s musical script is similar to Chopin’s). One notes that the
the Concerto (none was published during Chopin's lifetime). on the basis of A, above all the tutti, differ in many respects from
A precise characterisation of all the sources, their relations to one another, the version in Morch , which points to the participation of foreign
hands in producing the parts of the orchestral instruments as one
a detailed presentation of the differences appearing between them, and
finds them there (see Editorial Conception…, p. 2).
also reproductions of characteristic fragments of the different sources are
ReF Manuscript of piano reduction of the orchestra part of mvts. II & III
all contained in a separately published Source Commentary.
of the Concerto (lost, photocopy in Archiwum Akt Nowych, War-
More far-reaching editorial alterations (above all the reconstruction of cer-
saw), prepared by Julian Fontana, most probably on the basis of
tain fragments and the rationalization of performance markings) were ap-
[SI] (cf. Source Commentary to the concert score). In sections of
plied in the concert version of the score and are discussed in the com-
mvt. III marked as Tutti, played by the orchestra alone, Fontana
mentary to this version.
probably copied out the original draft of Chopin’s piano reduction,
contained in [SI]. ReF makes possible to a certain extent the recon-
The sign → indicates a relationship between sources and should be read as
'and the source(s) based thereon'.
struction of this lost source and of the directions of the changes
made to the instrumentation of the Concerto during the period
between the first performance of the work, in 1830, and its printing,
in 1836. Some pencil additions show that ReF was used – doubt-
Concerto in F minor, Op. 21 less by Fontana himself – for practical purposes.
GE First German edition of version for one piano, Breitkopf & Härtel
Sources (5654), Leipzig, Apr. 1836, based on A (cf. Source Commentaries
As Autograph sketch of a bar and a half from mvt. I of the Concerto to piano versions of the Concerto). There exist impressions of
(notated together with other, mutually unrelated, sketches on the last GE differing with regard to the cover price and several minor
page of the autograph of the Trio, Op. 8; Chopin Society, Warsaw). details of a purely graphical nature. The following was appended
It comprises the whole of bar 225 in notation for two pianos and to this edition:
an outline of its continuation. PGE Orchestral parts (same firm and number), most probably based on
[SI] Lost manuscript of the score of the Concerto, at least in consider- parts copied out and edited on the basis of M orch . In both the
able part an autograph (some or all of the tutti and string accom- handwritten basis and the printed orchestral parts, accidentals
paniments may have been written by a foreign hand), completed in and performance markings were revised and some other errors
Warsaw, probably early in 1830. Together with the parts which it from Morch were corrected. A considerable number of mistakes were
generated, it served for public performances (Warsaw, 17 & 22 also made. Nothing indicates Chopin’s participation in the pre-
March 1830). [SI] constituted a point of departure for the pre- paration of PGE.
paration of the extant semi-autograph of the score. It also most The NE editorial team is not aware of the existence of differen-
probably served Julian Fontana for the editing of the piano tiated impressions of PGE.
reduction of the orchestra part of mvts. II & III. FE First French edition of version for one piano, M. Schlesinger (M.S.
[AI] Lost autograph of the solo part of the Concerto, from which Chopin 1940), Paris, July 1836. Two different impressions have survived:
performed the work in Warsaw with orchestra (the performance of FE1 First impression, based on GE and revised by Chopin. It contains
concert works from music was normal usage at that time, as Cho- a substantial number of errors in pitch, chromatics and others (some
pin himself confirmed in describing his Vienna performance of the of the errors were reproduced from GE).
Variations, Op. 2, in a letter to T. Woyciechowski of 12 Sept. 1829: FE2 Second impression of FE (same firm and number), prepared
‘pale, with a rouged companion for turning the pages (who boasted shortly after the first. In the final phase of proofreading three
of having turned the pages for Moscheles, Hummel, Herz […]), changes, most probably from Chopin, were made in the reduc-
I sat down at […] the instrument’). tion of orchestral fragments of mvt. III. These changes should be
[PI] Lost orchestral parts, from which the orchestra played in Chopin’s regarded as applying intentionally to the orchestra part as well.
Warsaw concerts. There exist copies of FE2 differing solely with regard to details
½A Semi-autograph of the score of the Concerto (Biblioteka Narodo- on the cover, including the price, deriving from impressions pro-
wa, Warsaw), prepared by Chopin in collaboration with an uniden- duced by Schlesinger’s successor, Brandus.
tified copyist as the basis for the first German edition of the solo PFE Orchestral parts appended to FE (same firm and number), in which
part and orchestral parts, probably around the turn of 1835-1836. – with a number of mistakes and minor corrections – the text of
In later years (c. 1860 and later) ½A was also used by the same PGE was reproduced. Chopin had no hand in producing PFE.
publisher (Breitkopf & Härtel) in the editing of the second Ger- The NE editorial team is not aware of the existence of differen-
man edition of the piano part and two editions of the score; some tiated impressions of PFE.
additions (e.g. accidentals, even in the solo part) may date from EE First English edition of the Concerto in the version for one piano,
o o o
this period. Wessel & C (W & C N 1642), London, May 1836, based on a copy
½A = A + Morch : of FE2 lacking several of the latest corrections to be made.
A Piano part from ½A – a Chopin autograph presumably prepared Appended to this edition was PFE, bearing the Wessel stamp,
on the basis of [AI]. It contains the solo part and supplementary which makes it most unlikely that the orchestral material was
piano reduction, written in a smaller script, of purely orchestral printed by the English publisher.
sections and some instrumental passages. These sections include S65 First edition of the score of the Concerto, Breitkopf & Härtel
many names provided by Chopin of instruments playing particu- (10721), Leipzig, 1865-1866, based on ½A compared with PGE.
lar phrases, which is of fundamental significance for the recon-
struction of the orchestra part. ∗
For a hypothesis elucidating the purpose of this procedure, see J. Ekier, ‘Working on
Also written in Chopin’s hand are the title page of mvt. I and the the National Edition – four communiqués’, in Chopin In Performance: History, Theory,
metronomic tempi. In some fragments of the piano reduction in Practice. IV International Conference (Warsaw, 2005).

6
 Source Commentary

The text was subjected to a thorough revision, particularly with Vni & Vle. The accents erroneously do not appear until the third qua-
regard to performance markings, although many errors remained ver. Cf. A and all other parts.
uncorrected. A salient error of considerable gravity occurs in the
2
part of the timpani in S65: all the notes G (corresponding to bar 20 Fl. II. M orch erroneously has e as the last quaver. This obvi-
sounds c) were changed to F, which renders the part entirely false ous error was already corrected in PGE (→PFE).
(this notation seems to be non transposing; however, F consist-
p. 14
ently appears where c should be, and c where F (f) should be). bar 22 Fl. I. Missing before the seventh quaver of the bar in M orch
S79 Brahms’s edition of the score of the Concerto, part of a series of (→PGE→PFE) is . The error was not corrected until S79.
1
the complete works of F. Chopin (Erste kritisch durchgesehene Ob. II. M orch (→S65) erroneously has g as the last quaver. This
Gesamtausgabe), Breitkopf & Härtel (C XII 5), Leipzig, 1879. This obvious error was already corrected in PGE (→PFE).
edition is based on S65 compared with ½A. Most of the errors in
the base text are corrected, although new errors have occurred. bars 27-30 Fg. In M orch the a 2 of the bassoons is not marked from
SS = S65 & S79. the new page (bar 27).
SSi K. Sikorski’s edition of the score of the Concerto, part of a series
of the Complete Works of Chopin, Instytut Fryderyka Chopina bar 28 Fg. I & II. is missing before the minim in M orch
and PWM Edition (PWM-3821), Warsaw-Kraków, 1960. This edi- (→PGE→PFE). SS have the correct version.
tion is based on S79, with many revisions and alterations in the
instrumentation, harmony, dynamics and articulation. As these p. 15
bar 33 Vle. M orch (→PGE→PFE) erroneously has b as the last
were described in detail in the commentary to that edition, they crotchet. The error is shown by comparison with the analogous bar
are not noted here. 34 (in A the last chords of the left hand in bars 33-34 are ident-
ical, d -g-b ).
The editorial principles for the orchestra part
As the basic text we adopt Morch, being the only source produced – at bar 41 Fg. In M orch the second crotchet (f) is written – doubtless
least in part – under Chopin’s supervision. We correct only clear, mechan- by mistake – with two stems. In PGE (→PFE) this was taken as
ical errors in pitch or rhythm.
an indication that from this note up to the end of bar 43 the bas-
We retain the original, probably authentic, arrangement of instruments.
soons play a 2.
Indications as to the assignation of parts to pairs of wind instruments
( I , II , a 2 ), not always accurately marked in M orch , are supplemented p. 16
bars 45-48 Fg. Contrary to the notation of M orch this fragment was
in accordance with the musical sense.
erroneously added in PGE (→PFE) to both bassoon parts.
We unify the notation of tremolo in the strings.
We supplement without comment several dozen omitted accidentals p. 17
bar 60 Vle. In the second half of the bar M orch erroneously has
in places where the harmonic sense, in spite of their lack, is beyond the 1 1
slightest doubt, and the errors were already corrected in the first editions. the fourth a -d , probably instead of the fifth a -e . In PGE
We add no p e r f o r m a n c e m a r k i n g s, with the exception of the most (→PFE) the false note was removed, leaving only a .
obvious oversights, confirmed through comparison both with the parts Cl. II in si . On the fourth beat, an extra descending stem was mis-
1
of other instruments and with analogical places. We correct unquestion- takenly added to the a of the first clarinet part in S79, with the
able inaccuracies in the placing of signs (chiefly of dynamics). More effect that in the second clarinet part this bar has five crotchets.
specifically, markings relating to both staves which were written between p. 18
them are placed – in line with contemporary usage – by each. bars 81-82 Vle. In M orch (→PGE→PFE) the part of the violas was
As a rule, short diminuendo hairpins are given as l o n g a c c e n t s, so erroneously notated a third too high, as f -b -a . In S79 the sec-
characteristic of Chopin in his piano music. ond and third notes were corrected to g-f.

bars 117-118 Vni II. Comparison with the piano part suggests
The p i a n o p a r t comes from the volume 14 A XIIIb (version for one an error in rhythm (most probably, the rhythm of the first violins
piano). We omit fingering and elements of notation deriving from editors was mistakenly copied here). See Performance Commentary.
which have no effect on the tonal relations between the solo and orches-
p. 24
tra parts (brackets, minor variants). bars 167-169 In M orch the slurring in these bars is exceptionally
careless and unclear. We give one of the possible readings.
2 2
bar 172 Vni I. In M orch (→PGE→PFE) the raising d to d is
I. Maestoso erroneously placed tardily before the minim on the second beat.
p. 11 The error was corrected in S79.
Beginning PGE (→PFE) erroneously has as the time signature in Vc. In M orch (→PGE→PFE) the raising B to B is erroneously
all parts. Inaccuracies of this sort occurred many times in Chopin’s placed tardily before the minim on the second beat; this was cor-
works, e.g. in five of the six Op. 25 Études in time. rected only in SSi.

bar 6 Vc. M orch erroneously has g as the semiquaver on the third p. 25

bar 183 Cl. II in si . Missing in M orch (→PGE→PFE) is the
beat. In PGE (→PFE) the error was corrected. 1 1
raising e to e . The error was corrected in S79.
p. 13
bar 11 Vni. II. Morch (→PGE→PFE) has the following: bar 184 Vc. In M orch the quaver tremolo sign was omitted on the
1 fourth beat. It was already supplemented in PGE (→PFE).
. That the note c in the second half of the
p. 27
bar is not broken up into quavers is certainly an error, as is test- bar 196 Vle. Missing in M orch (→PGE→PFE) at the end of the first
1 1
ified by the quavers written out in Chopin’s hand in A. half of the bar is the raising a to a . The error was corrected
in S79.
bar 19 Ob. II, Cl. II in si & Fg. II. On the first quaver M orch has
neither note nor rest for these instruments. We supplement this in bar 199 Fl., Ob. Missing at the beginning of the bar in M orch
the most natural way given the voice leading in this place. (→PGE→PFE) is the grace note in the first oboe part. Comparison
Additions were already made in PGE (→PFE), although there with the second oboe part and with the parts of the flutes, which
2
the second clarinet doubles the c from the part of the first. from the last quaver of bar 198 to the end of bar 200 play in unison
3 1
Vni I. On the first quaver in S65, added arbitrarily to the d appear- with the first oboe, shows the omission to be the grace note g .
orch 2
ing in M (→PGE→PFE) is the lower octave d . In S79 the grace note was omitted in all four parts.

7
Source Commentary

p. 28
bar 212 Fg. I. The two quavers beginning the second half of the bar 343 Cb. As the fourth crotchet M orch has b instead of c 1 .
bar are erroneously notated in S65 as a dotted quaver and semi- The error was already corrected in PGE (→PFE).
quaver, and in S79 as a dotted quaver and quaver.
1 2
bar 346 Tr. II in si . As the fourth crotchet M orch has g instead of d .
p. 34
bar 254 Vc. As the third crotchet M orch (→PGE→PFE, →S65) The error was already corrected in PGE (→PFE).
has A. Thus the pencil deletion of visible in M orch must have been
made at a later time (after 1865), presumably during work on S79, bar 347 Cl. On the third beat M orch has in the clarinet part three
1 1 2
in which this error is absent. notes, g -b -d . Taking into account the sound of this chord in the
1 2
Chopin reduction in A, one may regard the fifth g -d as corres-
1
bars 255-256 Vni I. We give d , which appears in M orch . In the ponding to Chopin’s intentions. This is how it was interpreted in
1 1
other sources, naturals were added before these notes. Although PGE (→PFE) and S65. In S79 g was changed to b .
one cannot entirely exclude the possibility that was mistakenly
1
omitted in M orch , the version with d is considerably more likely,
taking account both of the sources and of style (see e.g. the ident-
ical chord in bars 325-326).
II. Larghetto
p. 48
p. 35 bars 44-45 Fg. Missing in M orch are rests for the second bassoon;
bar 257 Vle. In M orch the first two semiquavers erroneously sound
consequently, in PGE (→PFE) this fragment was placed in the
d . In PGE (→PFE) and SS this was changed to e , which is
parts of both bassoons. However, given the use of single flute and
certainly wrong, since the C major chord constitutes the axis around
oboe here it is more likely that only the first bassoon should play
which the harmony proceeds in this bar and succeeding bars
1 (the notation of M orch is not precise in this respect: e.g. rests for
(the e of the violins on the second and third quavers of the bar).
the second bassoon are also lacking in bars 89-95).
Given the lack of a before the notes in question, one may regard
a correction to c as more viable than to e. p. 50
bar 65 Vle. At the beginning of the bar M orch (→PGE→PFE) erro-
1 1
neously has d . In SS it was changed to c .
bar 259 Ob. I. Missing at the beginning of the bar in M orch
(→PGE→PFE) is . The error was corrected in S79. bar 66 Vc. In SS a tremolo sign was also added on the first crotchet
E . This note, which closes the phrase, may have been left without
bar 261 Fg. Missing before the octave at the end of the bar in M orch tremolo, as in M orch (→PGE→PFE), purposely by Chopin.
is the restoring e . In PGE (→PFE) this error was corrected in
the second bassoon part, yet with the simultaneous addition of p. 52 1
1 1
bars 78-81 Vni I. M orch (→PGE→PFE) has a single slur from a
an erroneous raising e to e in the first bassoon part. SS 1
in bar 78 to c in bar 81. This matches the original version of
have the correct version. 1 1 1
this fragment, in which the notes g , f and e in bars 79-80
p. 36 1
were minims (as in bars 11-12). In M orch Chopin subsequently
bar 263 Ob. II. At the beginning of the bar all the sources have b altered the rhythm, yet overlooked the fact that the original slurring
1
instead of g . The mistake is revealed by comparison with Chopin’s did not correspond with the new version.
1
reduction in A, where the note b is absent, and by the distance
2
between this note and the g of the first oboe, which in M orch gives
the illusion of an octave interval.
III. Allegro vivace
bars 265-266 Vc., Cb. M orch has unclear dynamic markings:
p. 54
twice at the entry of the motif, and besides this sempre . bar 14 Vc. At the beginning of the bar M orch (→PGE→PFE) erro-
The doubling of the indications here is probably due to a neously has e. The error was corrected only in SSi.
misreading of the change in the markings.
bars 15-1 6 Vc. In M orch appears tardily on the third beat of
bar 266 Vni II, Vle. Missing from the first half of the bar in M orch bar 16. This is doubtless a remnant from the original version, in
1 1
(→PGE→PFE) are raising e to e . The error was corrected which the double basses did not enter ( ) until this point (cf. bar
only in SSi. 340). The earlier entry in bar 15 is written into M orch – together
with the change in dynamics – in Chopin’s hand.
p. 38 1
bar 292 Vni I. We give the grace note e in the form of a small p. 55
crotchet, as in M orch . In PGE (→PFE) and S65 it was given the bars 19 & 343 Vle. In M orch (→PGE→PFE, →S65) the raising
1 1
form of a crossed quaver, and in S79 it was omitted. d to d is placed tardily before the third crotchet. The same
1
sources erroneously have a -e as the second crotchet of bar 19.
bars 295-296 Vni I. In both bars M orch has only the minim b. This Vni II. On the third beat M orch (→PGE→PFE, →S65) is lacking
1 1
rhythmic error was already corrected in PGE (→PFE). However, the raising d to d .
the harmonic incompatibility with the piano part compels one to
suspect that a more serious error has been made here – see bars 20 & 344 Vni I, Vle. At the beginning of the bar M orch is lack-
1 1
Performance Commentary. ing raising d to d . In PGE (→PFE) and S65 most of these
errors were reproduced; the sign was only added in the viola part
p. 39
bar 307 Vle. M orch (→PGE→PFE) is lacking raising d
1 1
to d . in bar 344.
The error was corrected in S79. Vni I. Missing in M orch (→PGE→PFE, →S65) before the second
1 1
crotchet of bar 20 is raising e to e .
p. 40
bars 313-314 Cor. I. M orch (→PGE→PFE) is lacking the tie. This
unquestionable oversight is testified by the lack of in bar 314. bars 21 & 345 Vle. As the first crotchet M orch erroneously has a -
1
SS have the correct version. g . The error was already corrected in PGE (→PFE).
p. 56
bar 318 Vni II. As the second minim M orch (→PGE→PFE, →S65) bar 56 Vni II. As the bottom note of the chord on the third beat M orch
1 1
erroneously has d instead of c . has a instead of g. The error was already corrected in PGE (→PFE).
p. 57
p. 41 bar 323 Vc. M orch (→PGE→PFE) erroneously has the last note bar 61 Fl. At the beginning of the bar M orch has the three notes
2 2 2 2
as A instead of B . SS have the correct version. c -e -f . The note e was certainly written here by mistake.
p. 43
bar 342 Vle. On the third beat M orch (→PGE→PFE) erroneously bars 63-64 Timp. in fa, do. M orch (→PGE→PFE) erroneously has
1
has g-c . The error was corrected only in SSi. G here. The error was corrected in S79.

8
 Source Commentary

p. 60
bar 120 Vc. Missing in M orch (→PGE→PFE, →S65) is raising Bars 406-409 Cor. The indication Cor de signal appears in M orch
E to E. (→PGE→PFE), doubtless copied here from [SI]. Although A has
p. 61
only Cor , written in Chopin’s hand, the second part of the term
bar 129 Fg. II. As the third crotchet M orch erroneously has b . (de signal) was added in GE (→FE→EE), in the proofreading of
The error was already corrected in PGE (→PFE). which the composer participated. Thus there are no grounds for
1
questioning its authenticity. Unfortunately, there are no sources
bars 131-133 Cor. The note b appearing in these bars is writ- confirming the introduction of this ‘signal horn’, as is the case,
ten in M orch with an ascending stem and is furnished in bar 131 with for example, in relation to the use of mutes in the Romance from
the indication Solo. It therefore seems almost certain – despite the E minor Concerto (referred to twice in Chopin’s correspond-
the lack of rests for the second horn – that it was intended for ence). Moreover, the possibility cannot be excluded that Chopin
performance by just a single French horn. However, in PGE and – either due to some practical difficulties or at someone’s sugges-
all the other sources it was written into both horn parts. tion – rejected the idea at some stage. Nonetheless, several argu-
p. 62 ments of both historical and musical nature convince us that the
bar 145 In all the parts M orch has after also the phrase e use in these bars of a different instrument was intended by
sempre. As the lack of continuation renders this indication mean- Chopin from the beginning:
ingless, we omit it. ― The effect of a post horn was fashionable in the Warsaw of
p. 64
Chopin’s youth in popular pieces for piano and other instruments.
bar 213 Cb. At the beginning of the bar M orch has, doubtless erro- ‘A great many dances appeared before 1830 and they also con-
1
neously, c . This note was already changed to a in PGE (→PFE). stituted the bulk of the output of [the publishing house of] Klu-
p. 65 kowski […]. Matching mazurkas for popularity were waltzes […],
bar 217 Pfte. Sources for the solo part – A (→GE→FE→EE) – in which a post horn can [sometimes] be heard.’ ∗
have F in the bass. At the same time, in the orchestra part – in — Chopin must have been familiar with the signals of the postil-
ReF & M orch (→PGE→PFE) – the bass note is the unquestionable ions who accompanied travellers in those days. It is possible that
G. This gives the second F-G at the beginning of the bar as the just such a signal heard on the journey to Vienna in late July
harmonic ground, which – especially given the lack of resolution 1829 gave rise to this fragment and to the virtuoso coda into which
in the following bar (ReF has there c-e ; M orch has C-e ) – could it expands. Such may be indicated by the similarity of one of the
not have been intended by Chopin in this type of accompaniment. authentic post signals used in nineteenth-century Austria (given
In bars 213-218 the lower tones of the piano together with the cellos here as it sounds on an instrument pitched at F). ∗∗
and double basses create (in the version of ReF) the following pro-
gression (written on the upper staff is the harmonic scheme of the and so on.
upper voices):
― The change of instrument here represents a colouristic effect
with implications for the expressive character of the music; after
the darker colouring of the key of F minor, the brighter, breezier
colour of the post horn leads splendidly into the cheerful mood
that dominates the coda (F major).
The precise identification of the instrument that Chopin may have
There are no grounds to surmise that Chopin wished to alter the had in mind is problematic. The years in which Chopin wrote this
bass note from G to F in this version. Due to the necessary re- concerto constituted a lively period in the construction of wind in-
solution of the seventh, this would involve a change in the bass in struments, with new instruments invented and familiar ones per-
the next bar as well (to E ), which appears in none of the sources fected. Yet the most likely candidate here is simply one of the post
(such a change was made in some later collected editions). horns in general use at that time (pitched at F).
Such a shaping of the bass line from the tones of the piano and See Performance Commentary at bars 349 & 406-409.
double basses in alternation is exceptional in Chopin‘s works with
orchestra. This may explain how, in writing A probably on the basis bars 494-502 Cl. in si & Fg. Notated in each bar on the neighbour-
of [AI], containing only the solo part, he could have forgotten about ing staves of these instruments are three notes. The middle note
1
the double bass entries supplementing the bass line and end the can be read as the f of the first bassoon (it has two ledger lines
1
progression – ‘automatically’ – A -G -F. below; these are absent in bar 502) or the d of the second clarinet
1
(it has an ascending stem, linking it to the g above). As it seems
p. 66 much more likely that the stem was inaccurately or mistakenly writ-
bar 241 Vni II. Missing in M orch (→PGE→PFE, →S65) is lower-
1 1
ing g to g . ten here than that unnecessary ledger lines were added, we
1
interpret this note as the f of the first bassoon (in line with the
p. 71 remaining sources).
bar 367 Vni I. Missing in M orch (→PGE→PFE, →S65) is raising
1 1
e to e . The error was corrected in S79. Cor. II in fa. In M orch (→PGE→PFE) the note c is written in the
bass clef, thus sounding f. However, the note concerned is certain
1
bars 373-374 Vni II. The sources have the two c tied, which is to be F, since f could have been notated simply in the treble clef
1
certainly a mistake (see Vni I & Vle). In SS the tie is arbitrarily as c . See note to bar 514. SS have the correct version.
added in these two parts as well.
bar 514 Fl., Ob., Cl. In M orch the grace notes are notated with single
p. 72 (ascending) flags. This is certainly a simplified orthography, and
bars 394-395 Vni I. In M orch (→PGE→PFE, →S65) the third
crotchet of bar 394 and the first of bar 395 are written an octave PGE (→PFE) already assigns them to both instruments of each pair.
1
lower, undoubtedly due to the omission of the all’ottava sign (in Cor. in fa. In M orch (→PGE→PFE) the octave c-c is notated in the
1
M orch this marking was used here in the flute part). See analog- bass clef (sounding f-f ). However, the intended tones are certainly
F-f (see note to bars 494-502). The error was corrected only in SSi.
ous bars 50-51.
p. 73 Jan Ekier
bars 405-514 Cl. in si . As the new key signature M orch repeats
the two flats hitherto employed. This illogical signature, leading Paweł Kamiński
to errors (in bars 405, 449, 492 & 511-513 the naturals neces- ∗
T. Frączyk, Warszawa młodości Chopina [The Warsaw of Chopin’s Youth] (Kraków,
sary in this situation are absent) was already changed in PGE 1961), 271-272.
(→PFE). ∗∗
A. Hiller, Das große Buch vom Posthorn (Wilhelmshaven, 2000), 92.

9
PERFORMANCE COMMENTARY

Initial remarks II. Larghetto

p. 51
The present ‘historical’ score is intended by the editors for study pur- bar 72 It is not clear from the orthography of the sources how
long the minim of the orchestra part filling the first half of the bar
poses, and should not be used in normal concert practice; for the pur-
should sound:
poses of public performance a ‘concert’ score has been prepared – see
— as long as the trill of the piano part, notated identically in terms
Editorial Conception of the Scores of Fryderyk Chopin’s Concertos. of rhythm (minim with fermata),
Therefore the present commentary concerns rather exceptional situa- — longer, up to the conclusion of the scale which ends the trill
tions, in which the ‘historical’ score might be used – for whatever rea- (counting the rhythmic values of this bar ‘from the end’, we see
son – as the basis for performance. that the beginning of the second half of the bar falls in the piano
2 3
part on the octave b - b , i.e. after the scale).
In practice, both versions seem acceptable, although the prefer-
Notes on the musical text red version should be consulted with the soloist.

L o n g a c c e n t s signify an accent of a primarily expressive character,

in which the accentuated part generally lasts slightly longer than in an
III. Allegro vivace
ordinary accent (with shorter rhythmic values, sometimes covering two p. 67
bar 260 Vni II. In order to avoid an awkward combination with
or three notes), and the drop in the intensity of the tone is smoother. 2 3 1
the notes d , d and later d appearing in the solo part, it is ad-
1 1 1
Editorial additions are given in square brackets; the indications given visable to change the e to f . The note f was most probably
in round brackets of the assigning of parts to pairs of instruments intended here by Chopin from the beginning (see corresponding
( I , II , a 2 ) were also added by the editors for clarity. note to the concert version of the score, vol. 34 B VIIIb).
General issues relating to the interpretation of Chopin’s works will be p. 70
discussed in a separate volume entitled Introduction to the National bars 349 & 406-409 Cor. I in fa. In bars 406-409 Chopin doubt-
Edition, in the section headed ‘Problems of Performance’. less intended a different instrument to be used, most probably
a post horn pitched at F (see Source Commentary). Given the
possible difficulties in finding an original period instrument of this
type suitable for concert performances, the editors recommend
that performers wishing to take account of Chopin’s intentions use
a contemporary replica of this instrument ∗ . Another option is to
replace the post horn with one of its descendants, i.e. the cornet
Concerto in F minor, Op. 21 or flügelhorn (ideally, pitched at F), which may be more readily
available. The most practical variant for the use of an instrument
I. Maestoso corresponding to Chopin’s intentions will doubtless become estab-
p. 20 lished only after a lengthy period of experimentation on concert
bars 117-118 Vni II. The following modification to the rhythm is platforms ∗∗ .
recommended in order to avoid harmonic disagreement with the Given the lack of time immediately prior to bar 406, the change
of instrument should be made earlier, in bars 349-387. If a natural
part of the solo piano: . instrument is used, the part of the first horn in the Tutti in bars
388-405 cannot be executed there in its entirety. In such instances,
the editors recommend the following arrangement of the parts of
p. 27 the ‘cor de signal’ and the second horn, enabling the execution
bar 200 Vni II. Harmonic disagreement with the parts of the bas-
of this Tutti:
soons, cellos and double basses can be avoided by modifying
Cor de
signal
the rhythm in the following way: . in fa
388 cresc. cresc.

Cor. II
p. 38
bar 290 Vc. In order to avoid harmonic awkwardness in juxtapo- in fa

sition with the part of the solo piano, the following modification to
Cor de
the second half of the bar is recommended: . signal
in fa
396
Cor. II
bar 296 Vni I, Vle. The following conjecture is recommended in in fa
order to avoid harmonic disagreement with the solo piano part: Solo
Cor de
Vni I signal
in fa 3 3
403 SOLO
Vle Cor. II
in fa

Jan Ekier
Paweł Kamiński

∗
Such a replica can be ordered, for example, from the Rudolf Meinl works in
Diespeck (Germany).
∗∗
The WN editors wish to express their sincere gratitude to Dr Edward H. Tarr
(Bad Säckingen) for valuable hints regarding the history and performance capa-
cities of instruments of this type.

11