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. 118-120

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

g in chords in GC (→GE), FE3 (→FE4), FESch & EE2

a in FE1 (→FE2→EE1)
..

The version of FE1 (→FE2→EE1) is probably the original version, as it was initially written also in GC, in which it was corrected, probably by Chopin. Interestingly, in GC also the middle crotchets in the R.H. (from f1 to e1) were corrected, which in FE, however, are printed right away in the final version. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that seeing identical chords in the L.H., the copyist considered the crotchets in the R.H. also to be identical. It is even more likely considering the fact that in the manuscrpts only the first of the three bars was written out with notes. The version with g was written also in FESch.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic corrections of FE , Alterations in GC , Authentic corrections in GC , Annotations in FESch

b. 118-120

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

c2 tied in GC & FE (→EE)

c2 repeated in GE
..

Chopin manner of writing ties clearly indicates that the ties combined in Chopin's mind with the note being added, which, due to this fact, was not struck. When interpreted in this way, the notation of GC means sustaining c2 through four bars, as each of the •/• signs replaces the c2 minim together with the preceding it tie. The version of GE is, therefore, a result of misunderstanding of GC.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 118-120

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

..

The  hairpin is only in GC and GE2. The sign in GC could have been added by Chopin (or overlooked in FE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 118-119

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

..

Same as in bars 54-55, GE2no2 arbitrarily combined the slurs here.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 118

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

Continuous slur in A

Slurs separated in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In this case, the change of slurring introduced in GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2) may come from Chopin. It is indicated by:

  • intense corrections of slurs in GE1 in the next line (bars 119-121);
  • an atypical to the manner of the engraver of GE1 place of division of the slur (not on a bar line or in the middle of a bar);
  • a correction visible in A at the beginning of bar 117 – the slur from the preceding bar originally reached the e1 semiquaver. It suggests that Chopin considered beginning a new slur from the 2nd crotchet in the bar (together with a new chord in the L.H.), hence exactly as we see it in GE1 in bar 118.

On the other hand, the clear and uncorrected mistakes in reproducing slurs in bars 115-117, preceding this place, dictate caution in the assessment of the slurring of GE1. Due to this reason, in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic slur of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Authentic corrections of GE