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. 2, Variations, complete

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in GE (→FE,FESB)

  in EE
..

In A, the pair of dynamic hairpins was written as close as possible to the top voice so that it was clear that it concerned this very voice; the slightly shortened  mark is a result of lack of space. For reasons of clarity, in the main text we move the marks over the stave. In GE (→FE,FESB) the  mark was prolonged, which could be considered acceptable; however, as a consequence, the mark seems to concern the R.H. bottom voice too, which is exactly what Chopin wanted to avoid in A. In the version of EE, the original notation is distorted even more (due to lack of access to A).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 in A, contextual interpretation

in GE (→FE)

in EE

in FESB
..

In A, the short  mark is placed in b. 6; however, since it reaches only the 1st crotchet in that bar, it is obvious that it concerns the f1-g1 step between the bars, which we give in the main text. The versions of editions are based on the interpretation of that mark performed by GE1, in which its right-hand ending is led to the 2nd beat of the bar, which has no basis in the notation of A. In spite of minor differences in the range of the marks in the editions, we regard them as different, since each may suggest a slightly different beginning or ending of the crescendo, while the mark in FESB actually resembles a reversed accent.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 5

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

e1-g1 third in AI

Only g1 in FE (→GE,EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

The missing e1 note in the R.H. in FE (→GE,EE) seems to be an oversight by the engraver, since analogous motifs are generally led in thirds.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 5-6

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

Longer slur in AI & FE (contextual interpretation→GE,EE)

Shorter slur in FE (literal reading)
..

The fact that the slur is not continued in a new line in FE is most probably an oversight by the engraver, and it was interpreted as such in the remaining editions. A longer slur is also present in AI, which allows us to recognise this version as the only one intended by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 5-7

composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor

Lower register of accompaniment in FE1 (→GE)

Higher register of accompaniment in FE2 (→EEW)
..

The authenticity of the change of position of the accompanying chords and the bass register introduced in FE2 (→EE) is unquestionable. In a later version Chopin polished up the sequence of 3 voices contained in chords in the tenor and alto register and avoided a parallel shift of chords (G major→C minor) between bars 7 and 8.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections of FE , Bass register changes