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. 130-133

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

Long accents in FC

R.H. long accent in FE

R.H. long accents in EE & GE1

Short accents in both hands in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The long accent in bar 130 must have been included in [A], whereas the remaining were added by Chopin in FC and probably in the base text to EE. The added signs have a form of long accents and this is how they were recreated in EE and GE1. In later GE, they were changed to common, short accents. The signs in FC are placed more or less between the staves and they probably concern both hands. In FE, EE and GE1 they were placed under the R.H., whereas in GE2 (→GE3), another set of accents for the L.H. was added.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 130

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

..

We add cautionary naturals before F1-F.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 130-134

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

Slur to f2 in GC

Slur to e2 in GE

No slur in FE

Slur up to bar 133 in EE

Slur up to bar 134 suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the slur in FE is certainly of an accidental nature – all slurs in bars 121-142 were overlooked. Moreover, the inaccuracy of the slur of GC (revised in GE) is unquestionable. The basis of the main text is the added slur of EE, most probably by Chopin.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC , Authentic corrections of EE

b. 130

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

c1-g1 in GE & EE, possible interpretation of GC & FE1 (→FE2→FE3)

c1-a1 in FE4
..

On the 2nd crotchet GC and the previous impressions of FE include in the R.H. the clearly erroneous c1-g1. As in the respective place of the previous bar there was c1-g1 in a similar context, it seems to be required to add a  raising g1 to g1. The addition was actually introduced in EE and GE. However, in the proofreading of FE4 a different changes was performed – g1 was replaced with a1. Both EE and FE4 bear traces of Chopin's intervention, so that each of these versions can be authentic. On the other hand, both sources include changes indicating a revision, hence it is not certain whether and which of them actually comes from Chopin.
In the main text we suggest the version of FE4 due to the unquestionable text at the repetition of this place (bar 170). Cf. bar 131. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of GC

b. 130

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

Long R.H. accent in A (literal reading→GE→FE)

R.H. short accent in EE

L.H. long accent in A, interpretation suggested by the editors
..

The interpretation of the long accent written in A presents difficulties: the sign is written in such a way that it can refer either to the minim in the R.H. or to f1 in the L.H. (a similar problem appears in the recapitulation, bar 278). According to us, it is more likely that Chopin wanted to draw attention to the chromatic transition of the tenor voice: f1-f1-[e1]. Shortening the accent in EE is a typical inaccuracy of this edition.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A