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. 3-4

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

..

In bar 3 all sources feature a completely unjustified  (cautionary?) to the first G note. In FC a respective  was also added in bar 4 (in pencil). We do not consider this accidental to be part of FC, since it was added by the reviser of GE. In addition to GE, the latter was also added in EE. In the main text we omit both accidentals.

The sharp in bar 3 must have been entered into [A] by Chopin. According to us, it could be an echo of the initial notation of bars 1-2, in which the top R.H. minim was written down as g1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Enharmonic corrections

b. 3-8

composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor

No  in PE

 in b. 3 in GE

[] in b. 8 suggested by the editors
..

The missing  mark may correspond to the notation of [A] or even to Chopin's intention – such situations are very frequent in his pieces; what is more, they do not always result from inadvertence. However, in this case the notation may be misleading – a single  mark in such a harmonic, dynamic and pianistic context most probably means that the pedal should be held until the very end of the passage, which we specify in the main text with the help of a [] mark. However, the addition of a relevant mark in GE proves that not everyone considered such pedalling natural or even correct.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 3-5

composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor

3 slurs in sources

Continuous slur suggested by the editors
..

The divided slur in the sources almost certainly resulted from a combination of extra-musical factors, e.g. unclear notation of [A] (e.g. due to combining slurs), inaccuracies (e.g. ink stoppage), transition to a new line, etc., since such slurring is contrary to the smoothly unfolding, homogeneous R.H. figuration. Due to the above, in the main text we give one, continuous slur.
See also bars 139-142. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 3

composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major

Crotchet E-B in FE (→GE,EE)

Quaver & rest suggested by the editors
..

The crotchet in the sources is almost certainly a mistake, which is supported by the quaver in the R.H. part and by the quavers in an analogous situation in bars 1, 5 and 7. It can be a mistake by the engraver or Chopin's inadvertence, who would often omit one of the few corrected places – see the note in bar 1. Due to the above, in the main text we give a quaver with a rest.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 3-13

composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major

..

In the main text we add cautionary naturals to e1 at the beginning of bars 3 and 5 and to e2 at the beginning of bars 11 and 13. The first pair of accidentals was also added in GE2 (→GE3), the second – in EEW and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions