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. 145

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

 before 5th quaver in A

 before 3rd quaver in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The too early placed  sign is undoubtedly an inaccuracy of GE (→FE→EE), undermining the dramatic effect of the dynamically exposed phrase (con forza).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 145-160

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

No L.H. slurs in A (→GE1→FE)

L.H. slurs in EE

L.H. slurs in GE2
..

In the entire section, Chopin wrote only one slur in the part of the L.H. in A, in bar 146. The fact that he then resigned from repeating the slurs written in the R.H. is proved by the notation of bar 160, opening a new page in A: in the part of the L.H. one can see there a deletion of a slur reaching the a minim and suggesting continuation from the previous bar. Therefore, the decision to add slurs, which were introduced in the entire section in EE (apart from bar 157) and GE2, was arbitrary, and it almost certainly does not correspond to Chopin's intention. Moreover, the added slurs differ between EE and GE2, since each of them copied the slurs of the R.H., which in EE generally correspond to the slurs of GE1, whereas in GE2 – to the slurs of A (cf. bars 152, 156, 157-158 and 159).
In the main text we preserve the notation of A. We discuss more complex situations from the point of view of sources in bars 146-148, 148 and 154 and 151 separately. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 145-146

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

Slur in FE (literal reading→GE1→GE2)

Slur in FE, possible interpretation

Tie to  f1 in EE & GE3
..

In the main text, we give the interpretation of the curved line of FE (→GE1→GE2) adopted in EE and GE3. The Chopinesque manner of writing ties as short curved lines reaching the prolonging note would frequently result in their erroneous interpretation. However, other possibilities cannot be excluded – the curved line in the autograph could have been led over the top voice, since moving slurs to the side of note heads was a routine procedure, frequently applied by engravers.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 145-146

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

..

Due to a possible misunderstanding of the Chopinesque tie sustaining f1, in some sources the note is repeated – see the previous note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 145-147

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

No marks in FE (→GE,EE)

3 vertical accents in FEH
..

In each of these bars, FEH features a vertical accent over the 4th semiquaver of the bar. The first two only confirm (or possibly explain the meaning of) the printed long accents. The third one may be considered an additional argument for adding an accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH