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. 112-113

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

..

The evolution of the slurring in these bars, visible in the deletions and corrections of A, could have looked like as follows:

  • Chopin started from 4 half-bar slurs in b. 112-113;
  • the slur in the 1st half of b. 113 was deleted and replaced with a shorter one, encompassing only the b2-a2 motif (the slur of the same range concerning the bottom voice could have been introduced at this stage as well); at the same time, a change was made to the slur in the 2nd half of the bar, i.e. it should start earlier – from the g2 quaver;
  • eventually, Chopin combined 3 slurs (the second in b. 112 and both in b. 113) in one, which he prolonged to the 1st chord in b. 114.

The slur received its final shape at the stage of proofreading FE – Chopin prolonged it to the beginning of b. 115.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 112

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

cresc. in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

In A the arms of the  mark are of different length; in this case, we regard the top, longer arm as reliable.
The omission of the hairpin in the editions most probably resulted from an ad hoc revision of the engraver of GE1, who considered the two overlapping synonymous indications an unnecessary complication.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 112-116

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

F1-F octaves in AsI

F quavers in A (→GE→FE,EE,FESB)
..

The octaves in AsI in b. 112 and at the beginning of b. 116 are probably the initial version, possibly a temporary variant, eventually abandoned by Chopin (the latter could be indicated by the notation with the carelessly written down 8s, probably added later, since the other octaves are written down without abbreviations).

category imprint: Corrections & alterations

issues: Chopin's hesitations , Bass register changes , Abbreviated octaves' notation

b. 112-116

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

E1-E in sources

B2-B1 suggested by the editors
..

When compared with analogous bar 279 and 283, the source version of the 1st L.H. octave in bar 112 and 116 is more static, harmonically speaking, which results from the tonic E chord being repeated four times in root position – in bar 110, 112, 114 and 116. According to us, it is highly likely that Chopin reduced here the intended, more harmonically distinct version due to the limited range of his piano, which reached only C1. Due to the above, in the main text we suggest a version modelled on bar 279 and 283. Cf. the Scherzo in C minor, Op. 39, bar 241.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Constraint from piano range

b. 112

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

a in A (→GE) & EE2

b in FE (→EE1)
..

b in the last R.H. chord is almost certainly a mistake by the engraver of FE or by the copyist in [FC]. This is proven by the repetitions of this motif in bars 116-118.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE