mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
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. 3

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

..

The d1 and c1 notes on the 2nd beat of the bar are written as quavers in the violas' part. It is the first of a few rhythmic discrepancies of this kind between the orchestral part and the corresponding Chopinesque piano reduction constituting a part of FE – cf. bars 12 and 53. It does not seem that all of them could be attributed to mistakes; there are also no proofs suggesting that Chopin could have been striving for a unified rhythm in those places. Therefore, it suggests that the orchestral parts and the piano reduction were considered independently, to a certain extent, and in a quite surprising aspect.  

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Dotted or even rhythm

b. 3

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

f1 tied in FE (→EE)

f1 repeated in GE
..

In FE, the f1 tie is printed slightly inaccurately, so that in GE1 (→GE2) it was misinterpreted as a slur for the bottom voice in the R.H. (in GE3, the mark was omitted).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE

b. 3

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

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

The authenticity of the fingering added in FEH is uncertain – see the characterization of that source.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 3-5

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Slur in Afrag

Slur in A1

2 slurs, our alternative suggestion

Slur in FE1 (→EE)

Slur in FE2

Slur in GE
..

The comparison of all analogous places (b. 3-5, 27-29 and 59-61) as well as of the similar motifs in b. 7, 11 and analog. leads to the following conclusions:

  • the beginning of the slur of Afrag is most probably inaccurate – the slur is also supposed to encompass the semiquaver, just like in b. 11. Presumably, the slur of GE is also similarly inaccurate;
  • the absence of a slur in b. 3-4 must be an oversight of A1. Chopin probably meant 2 slurs here, just like in b. 27-29;
  • the slur of FE1 (→EE) is a distorted slur of A1, which was corrected by Chopin in FE2.

We provide the main text with the version of FE2, which can also be considered a contextual interpretation of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

G repeated in Afrag

G tied in A1 (→FE→EE) & GE
..

It is difficult to say whether the missing tie of G is an actual variation of the text (original?), an oversight or an element overlooked as a result of abandoning the work on this manuscript.

category imprint: Differences between sources