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. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Fingering in FEJ

No teaching fingering
..

To the main text we adopt the Chopinesque fingering, written in pencil in FEJ.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEJ

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

3 short accents in FE (→GE,EE)

3 long accents suggested by the editors
..

In all sources, 3 subsequent accents in bars 5-6 are short. We consider it to be an inaccuracy of the engraver and suggest long accents in the main text:

  • long notes – in this case dotted g1 minims – are generally provided with long accents by Chopin;
  • the motif at the end of bar 5 is a repetition of the motif in bar 4, in which a long accent is unquestionable in FE.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 5-37

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

4 wedges in A, probable interpretation

4 dots in A, possible interpretation

3 wedges & dot in FC

2 times 2 dots in FE (→EE)

4 times 2 dots in GE
..

In this context, the markings with which Chopin provided the crotchets in bars 5, 13, 29 and 37 in A may only denote staccato only, although it is not obvious whether he meant wedges or dots, since they clearly differ from dots (e.g. numerous dots extending minims or crotchets), yet their shape also does not bring to mind wedges or even vertical dashes, which could be easily identified with them. Due to that reason, in the main text we also suggest dots, next to wedges, as an alternative solution. In the remaining sources the notation of A was inaccurately reproduced; GE is an exception; in that edition the notation was unified to a form that is absent in those bars both in A and FC.   

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , FE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 5

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Fingering written into FED

No teaching fingering
..

In the main text we include the fingering digit, coming from Chopin, entered into FED. There are similar situations in the further course of Andante, in b. 17, 27, 29, 36 and 41. At the end of the bar in FED one can see a vague diagonal line: it could have been, e.g. a mark separating e2 from f2, in accordance with the printed slurring, or an asemantic trace of gesticulation focusing the pupil's attention on the discussed interpretative problem.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 5

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

in FE (→GE)

in EE
..

 is probably a revision of EE – repetition of  could have seemed superfluous. There is also a possibility, although, according to us, highly unlikely, that this indication was initially also in FE, in which Chopin, however, changed it to  in the last stage of proofreading. After all, the composer's intention is not obvious here if we take into account the crescendi filling the following 6 bars. The orchestral voices also do not dissipate our doubts, since the cellos and double basses are provided with , yet violins and violas – with  (the remaining voices are devoid of dynamic markings here).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , fz – f