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. 120-122

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

No L.H. slur in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slur to end of bar 121 in EE, contextual interpretation

Slur to bar 122 in GE3
..

The added slur in the L.H. is obviously musically justified. However, in the main text we keep the original notation, since Chopin used both notations in similar contexts – with a slur only over the R.H., valid by default also for the L.H., or with separate slurs for both hands. Both EE and GE3 added a slur corresponding to the slur in the R.H. – in EE to the end of bar 121, and in GE3 to e3. The slur in EE begins only just in bar 121 (on a new line); however, its beginning points to continuation from the previous bar.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , GE revisions

b. 120-121

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Continuous slur in FE (→GE)

2 slurs in EE
..

In the main text we preserve the slur of FE (→GE), which is most probably authentic. We consider the version of EE, which one can see as an editorial revision or as the initial version of this fragment, to be a variant of uncertain authenticity.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 120-122

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

in AF (→FE)

  in GE

No signs in EE

  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we follow the marks of GE, in which the markings are more accurate in this fragment (pedalling in b. 117-121,  in b. 119). The only element we modify is the ending of the mark, since b. 121 closes a line in this edition; therefore, even if the notation of [AG] resembled the one of AF, the engraver could have considered the placement of a very short ending of a hairpin in a new line to be irrational. The version of AF (→FE) can be considered an equal variant.
In fact, the difference may be subtle – the mark of AF suggest the most emphasis on the crotchet ending b. 120, whereas in the version of GE such a local climax can be this chord or the minim in b. 121.
The missing mark in EE is probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE

b. 120

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

F-f in GE

D-d in FE (→EE)
..

As was the case with b. 96, in the main text we give the version corrected by Chopin in FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes

b. 120-124

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

Staccato dots in A

No marks in FE (→GE,EE)
..

In FE (→GE,EE), the staccato dots over the initial octaves in b. 120 and 124, present in A, were overlooked. In this case, it is an oversight by the engraver of FE that seems to be the most likely reason; therefore, we include these dots in the main text, particularly since the presence of a respective mark in b. 122 in the editions rather excludes the possibility that Chopin could have consciously accepted inconsistent markings.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE