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. 7-8

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

Slur from e1 in Atut, literal reading

Slur from g1 in Atut, interpretation suggested by the editors

No slur in FE (→EE)

Slur in bar 8 in GE
..

In Atut, it is unclear from which note the slur begins. When interpreted literally, it seems to be encompassing three notes, from the e1 semiquaver. However, according to us, the shape of the line suggests that Chopin started writing it earlier, yet the ink did not flow out immediately. From the musical point of view, it would be a slur beginning already from the c2 quaver that would be most natural; however, reluctant to excessively intervene in the graphic image of music, in the main text we suggest a slur from the note that directly precedes its visible ending.
The missing slur in FE (→EE) is most probably a result of the engraver's oversight. In GE, a slur was added after the authentic slur in the L.H. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 7

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In the chord in the middle of the bar, GE1 has a b crotchet instead of an a minim, whereas the f minim is assigned to the L.H. The reviser of GE2 corrected only the pitch of that note, leaving the erroneous rhythmic value and division into parts. It is unclear how those mistakes occurred, yet the correctness of the version of FE (→EE) is unquestionable.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 7

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

Small crotchet in FE

Acciaccatura in GE

Appoggiatura in EE
..

The authenticity of the grace note in the form of a small crotchet raises serious doubts – a small quaver occurs here in the Flute I part of FEorch (→GEorch). The discussed notation was found erroneous already in GE and EE, and both introduced forms of grace notes may be considered to be potentially compliant with the notation of [A]. In the main text, we adopt slashed quavers, most frequently used by Chopin.

See I mov., bar 250.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 7

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

The cautionary  before b in the last R.H. chord, present in the majority of the sources and poorly justified, was removed only in EE2. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 7-8

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

in FE

No sign in EE

in GE1

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The missing  in EE is probably an oversight, although it is likely that the hairpin was intentionally omitted as supposedly superfluous along with cresc. The shift of the mark in GE1 could be considered an inaccuracy, yet its extension in GE2 (→GE3) was almost certainly intentional – attempts were made to bring the beginning of the hairpin towards the 1st quaver.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , GE revisions