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. 110

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

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

The digits written in FES in pencil are not only poorly visible, but they could have also been changed, as a result of which one can see more than one digit in some of the annotations. The markings over c3 (4?), c3 (4 or 5) and f2 and e2 (1 or 2) are particularly difficult to decipher. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 110

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

Fingering written into FES

Fingering written into FEH

Fingering based on FES & FEH

No teaching fingering
..

Like in the R.H., the fingering digits written in FES pose problems in their interpretation, particularly those concerning e2 (1?) as well as b1 and d2 on the 3rd beat of the bar (4?, 1?). Generally, the fingering of FEH is totally compliant with the indications of FES – possible differences may occur only on the last two semiquavers on the 3rd beat of the bar, for which the interpretation of the entries in FES is questionable. In this situation, in the main text we give fingerings stemming from both copies, creating a coherent whole.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH

b. 110

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

Minim d1 in Atut (literal reading→FE→GE,EE)

Dotted minim d​1 in Atut, contextual interpretation
..

In Atut, the rhythmic value of the d1 minim is unclear – there is no stem next to it, hence it seems to be a semibreve. It can be a mere deficiency, frequent in Chopin's autographs; however, it cannot be excluded that Chopin planned here a dotted minim, like it is in the orchestra (bassoon I) and in similar bars 122 and 682.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 110-111

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

Slur in Atut, literal reading

Slur in Atut (possible interpretation→FE→GE,EE)
..

When interpreted literally, the ending of the slur in Atut does not go beyond bar 110, which was considered an inaccuracy in FE (→GE,EE). In the main text, we include the literal interpretation, since the beginning of bar 111 is the overlap between two phrases, whereas the momentum with which the new phrase enters undoubtedly overshadows the delicate ending of the previous one.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 110

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Long accent in FE (→GE)

Short accent in EE
..

In EE, the accent was inaccurately reproduced as a short one.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies