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. 4

composition: Op. 25 No 8, Etude in D♭ major

No slur in A (→GE1) & FE

Slur in EE

Slur in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In A (→GE1) and FE, a part of the L.H. in the 2nd half of the bar is written on the top stave, under the part of the R.H. In such a graphic layout, the last 6 sixths in the L.H. are de facto embraced with the slur over the part of the R.H. In the graphic layout adopted by us, one has to complete the slur in order to capture the sense of Chopin notation, which was performed already in EE and GE2 (→GE3). In the main text we give the slur of EE, as it could have been written in such a form by Chopin, yet the solution adopted in GE2 seems to render the idea of the composer's notation in the most accurate way. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 4

composition: Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

c1-d1-f1 in GC (→GE) & EE

a-c1-f1 in FE
..

The version of FE is earlier – in GC one can see a correction, in which a was deleted, while d1 probably added. A similar change might have been introduced to the base text to EE. According to us, both versions are stylistically more or less equal, and ten years later Chopin did not see a reason to change the original version in pupil's copies.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 4-5

composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

Slur in GC (→GE) & EE

Slur in FE
..

Probably only one of these slurs is authentic, while the difference is a result of different interpretation of the notation of [A], perhaps inaccurate. In the main text we give the slur present in the base source – GC (→GE) – confirmed also in EE. Leading the bass line legato until A1 is justified as far as the performance point of view is concerned, yet the fermata suggests breaking the continuous course of music after bar 4.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 4-6

composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

..

In bar 6, opening a new line of the text in A (→FE→GE), Chopin wrote new  hairpins. However, the range of both this sign and of the previous one (in bar 5) clearly indicates the intention of a continuous crescendo in both bars. This is how it was reproduced in the editions in the written repetition of these bars (in EE the unambiguous notation was used already in the first appearance of this fragment). Taking into account the fact that in our transcriptions bars 5-6 are in one line of the text, we use one  sign, as the seemingly literal interpretation of both signs in such a graphical layout would have changed its sense to a much greater extent.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Hairpins denoting continuation

b. 4-5

composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

Slur in GC (possible interpretation→GE1) & EE

Slurs in GC (probable interpretation), FE & GE2 (→GE3)
..

In GC both the end of the slur in bar 4 (at the end of the line) and the beginning of the slur in bar 5, starting the new line, are written with such an extensive movement that they can be interpreted as one slur. According to us, it is, however, more likely that Chopin wanted to emphasise the beginning of the theme with a new slur. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC