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. 122-123

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

g tied in A (→GC) & FE3

g repeated in FE1 (→FE2), EE & GE
..

In EE, GE and FE1 (→FE2) there is no tie sustaining the g note to the next bar. FE3 corrected this inaccuracy.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 122-123

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

 in A

 in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3→GE4)

No sign in GE1
..

The  hairpins were inaccurately recreated in FE (→EE), whereas in GE1 they were most probably overlooked. In the subsequent GE the sign was added on the basis of analogous bars 18-19. In the main text we give the hairpins of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 122

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

d in chord in FC (→GE1), FE & EE1

d in EE2 (→EE3) & GE2 (→GE3)

d suggested by the editors
..

The sharp before the bottom note of the chord appears only in the later sources, bearing traces of an intense editorial revision – EE2 (→EE3) and GE2 (→GE3). The revisers could have considered the  in the next bar – written probably due to the simultaneously stroke d1 in the R.H. – to be a signal that there should be a  before the discussed note. In the main text we give the unambiguous version of FC (→GE1), FE and EE1, in which the bass line features a repetition of the sound at the transition between the bars, so characteristic for leading voices in this Etude. In order to avoid doubts, we provide this note with a cautionary natural. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 122

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Slur in FC, probable interpretation

Slur in FC (possible reading), FE & GE

No slur in EE
..

The moment of starting the slur in FC is unclear, which most probably corresponds to the notation of [A] and which would explain both the slur of FE and of GE (the seemingly shortened slur in GE3 is most probably a print fault). However, according to us, in this type of context, the written with panache beginning of the slur could concern only the 2nd crotchet in Chopin's intention – cf., e.g., the Mazurka in G minor, Op. 24 No. 1, bar 21. An additional argument for such an interpretation of this slur can be the slur of EE in bars 121-122. The total absence of the discussed slur in EE is most probably accidental.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 122

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

No marks in FC (→GE1→GE2) & FE

Staccato dot in EE

Accent in GE3
..

The staccato dot in EE may be authentic, whereas the accent in GE3 is not.

category imprint: Differences between sources