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. 126

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

..

In the main text we add cautionary flats before e2 and e3.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 126

composition: Op. 19, Bolero

No indication in FE (→GE,EE)

[] suggested by the editors
..

We suggest adding  for the 1st quaver in the L.H. Chopin placed the marking in analogous bar 92.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 126-127

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

1 slur in A & GE2

2 slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Breaking the slur between these bars is a characteristic inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 (after all, the two-bar slur in bars 125-126 is already a result of proofreading – the remaining elements of original slurs show that each of these bars was most probably embraced with a separate slur). The continuous, four-bar slur written in A was restored in GE2. See also bars 128-129.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1

b. 126-127

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

FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

GE2a

GE3
..

It is difficult to determine how come that the correct text of GE2 (excluding the mistake in the 1st quaver in bar 127, discussed separately) was changed to the impoverished version of GE2a. Perhaps a worn-out fragment of a plate was re-engraved in order to remove the increasingly pronounced printing defects. Traces of such procedures are to be found, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21 – see the characterization of its GE1a. It also happened that various mistakes were committed in a newly engraved text, most frequently, precisely, oversights. However, in the discussed place printing defects are visible rather on the available copies of GE2a; hence after possible corrections (cf. e.g. the copy from the National Library in Warsaw).
GE3 introduced here a version based on GEorch, which differs in certain details from the authentic version of FE (→GE1→GE2). Could it be that the reviser of GE3 corrected the erroneous text of GE2a not having access to the authentic version printed (with only one mistake) in GE1 and GE2? It seems to be more likely than possible direct changes in the version of GE2, in which it was enough to correct the erroneous top note of the 1st quaver in bar 127.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 126

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No mark in GE
..

The missing staccato dot for the 1st note in the R.H. is most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE