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. 5

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

 in GC (→GE) & FE

 in EE
..

The sources do not state clearly which quaver is affected by the  sign. One can choose between the 2nd quaver, as it is in FE and as GE interpreted the unclear sign of GC (it could have been assigned to the rest of the L.H., falling on the 2nd quaver or apply it to the 3rd, or even the 4th quaver of the bar), or the beginning of the bar, as EE interpreted the notation of FE. The piano and sound reality make us consider both versions to be possible. In the main text we reproduce the notation of the base source, i.e. FE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 5-8

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

Slur in GC (→GE)

No slur in FE (→EE)
..

The slur over this four-bar section could have been added by Chopin in GC (→GE) or overlooked by the engraver of FE (→EE). It seems to be highly unlikely that Chopin intentionally removed this sign.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections in GC

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

Two  in GC (→GE)

Two-bar  in FE (→EE)
..

According to us, the most likely explanation for the existing discrepancy between the sources based on [A] is the sometimes used by the engravers identification of two (or more) following  signs with one longer. A possible Chopin's correction in [A], introduced already after preparing GC, which is potentially an alternative explanation, seems to be poorly justified:

  • two  do not exclude a continuous crescendo, therefore, there is no need to combine the signs;
  • only the separate signs show also a dynamic change defining the character of the one-bar repetitive motifs, ended with an accent.

Due to this fact, in the main text we give the source and stylistically unquestionable indications of GC (→GE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions , Hairpins denoting continuation

b. 5-9

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

..

Both in bars 5 and 9 A does not include the  returning b on the 3rd beat of the bar. This patent inaccuracy was corrected already in FE1. Similarly in bar 34. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A & GE3op

No sign in FE (→EEC,EEW1,GE1no2,GE1op→GE2op)

Shorter  in GE2no2 & EEW2
..

The absence of the  hairpin is certainly an oversight of the engraver of FE. The sign was added in GE3op and – in a shortened form – in GE2no2 and EEW2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions