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

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).

Compare the passage in the sources »

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.

Compare the passage in the sources »

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.

Learn more »

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.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

c2 repeated in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

c2 tied in GE
..

The version with tied c2, coming probably from [AG] (→GE), is undoubtedly later, hence we give it directly in the main text. Admittedly, Chopinesque proofreading of FE took place even later, yet the fact that a tie was not added here does not allow us to draw conclusions that Chopin returned to the original concept, since the difference could have been of less importance to the composer, hence he could have forgotten it while proofreading FE.
There is a similar situation in b. 7-8 and 95-96.

Learn more »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations