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. 140-141

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A (probable interpretation→FE→EEC) & GE2no2

 in A, possible interpretation

No sign in GE1op, GE1no2 & EEW1

 in GE2op (→GE3op) & EEW2
..

The interpretation of the range of  in A – see bar 13. The solution adopted by us finds confirmation in the notation of FE (→EEC), being probably a result of a proofreading, a Chopin one. It is indicated by the absence of the hairpin both in GE1op and GE1no2, which makes us assume that it was originally absent in FE too. In turn, the missing sign in EEW1 is certainly an oversight – the hairpin was overlooked also in adjacent bars 138-139 and 142-144.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 140

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

11 dots in A

16 dots in GE

15 dots in FE (→EE)
..

Generalising staccato dots to all semiquavers is almost certainly an arbitrary decision of GE (→FE→EE). It is proved by the original slurring of A in which the slur embraced only three groups of semiquavers: the ones with dots. According to us, it points to interconnected indications, which is quite frequent in Chopin's works; in this way, Chopin would indicate a milder or more delicate articulation than the common staccato. At the same time, the original slur confirms that according to Chopin's intention, the described performance manner concerned only 11 notes.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 140

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

 to b2 in A

Whole-bar  in GE (→FE→EE)
..

Extending the  hairpin into an entire bar is an example of a characteristic manner of the engraver of GE1. The sign in A leads to the topmost note in this bar and not to the beginning of the next one; similarly in analogous bar 288.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 140

composition: Op. 19, Bolero

Fingering in FEO, literal reading

Fingering in FEO, probable interpretation

Fingering in FEO, possible interpretation

No teaching fingering
..

The interpretation of the fingering written in FEO is not certain. The digits written therein imply a division of the passage between the hands, different from the one following from the printed layout of beams; however, it was not marked in any way – all digits are above the notes. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that, on the 2nd crotchet in the bar, digits for the 2nd and 3rd semiquavers were swapped by mistake. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEO

b. 140

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

Staccato dot in FE (→EE)

No mark in GE

Wedge suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the staccato dot in FE (→EE) may be a result of a mistake of the engraver of FE; therefore, in the main text we suggest a wedge in this place – see also the note on bars 137-142. The absence of the mark in GE is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE