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. 109-111

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Shorter slur in GE

Slur to bar 111 in FE (→EE)
..

The absence of the phrase mark over the second part of the phrase is most probably an oversight suggesting that [A] could have had two phrase marks in b. 107-110, like in analogous b. 31-34. However, it is only speculation, hence in the main text we give the unequivocal four-bar phrase mark of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 109

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No marking in sources

Arpeggio sign suggested by the editors
..

Taking into account the probably inaccurate notation of arpeggios in similar bars (cf. b. 33 and 55, in which there are no marks in GE), we assume that it is likely that the arpeggio mark was overlooked here; hence in the main text we suggest supplementing the notation of the sources.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 109

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The last semiquaver in GE1 (→FE1) is an erroneous a3 note. The mistake was corrected in GE2 (→GE3,FESB) and – perhaps at Chopin's request – in FE2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 109-112

composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor

Different slurs in sources

Slur in sources in b. 109-112
..

The shorter slur present in the sources in the repetition of this phrase (bars 109/133-112/136) probably resulted from a mistake by the copyist preparing the basis for PE1 on the basis of [A] – he could have, e.g. looked at similar bars 85-88 (in the R.H. part). In the main text we give a longer slur, which seems to fit better with the homogeneous, smooth accompaniment. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 109

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

at beginning of bar in A (→GE)

after 1st crotchet in FE (→EE)
..

According to us, the fact that the  mark in FE is more to the right, which may be suggesting that this type of dynamics is in force only just starting from the quaver octave sequence, resulted from an inaccuracy that occurred somewhere between A – [FC] – FE. At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that it was Chopin himself that wrote  in [FC] or while proofreading FE1 in this way, since in his pieces we often encounter the manner of writing dynamic markings inside, and not at the beginning of their range – cf., e.g. the autographs of the Etude in G, Op. 10 No. 5, bar 83, Concerto in E minor, Op. 11, I mov., bar 16 or Prelude in B minor, Op. 28 No. 16, bars 45-46.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Centrally placed marks