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. 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

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

 in FE, literal reading

in GE

 in FE (contextual interpretation→EE)
..

In FE (→GE) the  mark is placed only in b. 6, the first in a new line. However, the manner it was placed suggests that Chopin wanted it to begin earlier, probably similarly to the hairpin in b. 7-8. This is how it was understood in EE and this is the version we give in the main text. In turn, in GE the mark was considered to have been carelessly engraved, thus it was being gradually shortened and its starting point moved towards the 1st quaver in b. 6. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 5

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Wedge in Afrag

Staccato dot in A1 (→FE→EE) & GE
..

The wedge in Afrag is probably the original version (or simply an inaccuracy).

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Slur reaching beyond bar 6 in Afrag, GE & contextual interpretation of A1

Slur to end of bar 6 in A1, literal reading

Slur to end of bar 5, interpretation 

Slur to minim in bar 6 in FE2 & EE
..

The slurs of Afrag and GE are unequivocal; since such a slur is featured in all analogous bars in GE, we give it – as present in [A2] – in the main text. The slur of FE is clearly erroneous, which was corrected in FE2 and EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with b. 1-2. The slur of A1 is problematic; just like the remaining slurs in the 1st line of the manuscript, it reaches the end of the bar, yet its shape suggests that it is supposed to be led to the beginning of the next bar. It is explicitly confirmed by the fact of ending the slur in b. 11 (on a new line) as well as by the unequivocal slur in b. 25-27, corrected by Chopin. In such a context, we interpret the slur of A1 as reaching the 1st quaver in b. 7.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

..

Most accidentals before quavers are written lower than the corresponding noteheads. In this case it poses obviously no risk of a misunderstanding.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Accidental below/above the note