mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 398

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

 under e2 in sources 

 under d2, our alternative suggestion
..

Providing a note that is neither a climax or a turning point or that is not rhythmically emphasised at all (e.g. a strong beat of the bar, syncopation) with a ​​​​​​​ mark is unheard of in Chopin's music. Therefore, one may assume a wrongly assigned indication (to a wrong note). A natural candidate for a note that Chopin probably wanted to underline is d​​​​​​​​​​​​​​2, which is a turning point of the melody and which is rhythmically separated by the breath that follows it. Due to this reason, we suggest moving  one note behind, which would correct a possible inaccuracy.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 398-399

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

2 slurs from 2nd note in FE

Different slurs in GE1 (→GE2) & EE

2 slurs from first note in GE3
..

Two subsequent slurs starting later than in the adjacent figures must be an inaccuracy of FE, partially repeated in GE1 (→GE2) and EE. In the main text, we move the beginnings of the slurs to over the 1st semiquaver, in accordance with the musical sense and analogous figures. Such a revision was introduced already in GE3.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 400-401

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Slurs in FE

Slurs in GE
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 400

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No mark in FE (→EE1)
..

The lack of staccato dot in FE (→EE1) must be regarded as an inaccuracy. The mark was added already by the revisers of GE and EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 400-401

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

in FE, literal reading

​​​​​​​ in FE, contextual interpretation

  ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ in GE1 (→GE2)

​​​​​​​ in EE

    in GE3
..

In bar 401, the  mark is placed in FE after the d​​​​​​​1-a1 crotchet, which is most probably an inaccuracy, since it cannot be justified in terms of sound. The notation was revised – in various ways – both in GE and EE. In the main text, we suggest yet another solution, combining harmonic purity with a high compliance with the original notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions