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. 119-120

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

..

The cautionary flats before d1 in bar 119 and d3 in bar 120 were added by us.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 119-120

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

No slur in sources

Slur suggested by the editors
..

Sustaining the e bass note suggests that the articulation of this pair of chords does not differ from the remaining motifs in these bars, including an analogous ascending sequence at the transition between bars 120 and 121. In this situation, we consider the missing motivic slur to be Chopin's oversight.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 119-120

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

Tie & slur in A & GE2

Slur e1-c1 in GE1

Slur d​1-c1 in FE (→EE)
..

Out of the two curved lines written in A, the tie of e1 and the motivic slur of d1-c1, GE1 made one slur embracing e1-c1. The mistake was partially corrected in FE (→EE), in which the slur combines d1-c1. The correct text is only in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 119

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

g2 in A

e2-g2 in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The missing e2 on the penultimate quaver in the bar is almost certainly Chopin's mistake, corrected by him in GE (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 119

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

Solo from 3rd quaver in FE (→GE,EE)

Solo from 4th quaver in FEH (possible interpretation)
..

FEH contains an ambiguous entry in the 2nd half of the bar – two almost vertical lines that can be interpreted as an emphasis on the entry of the solo part or, on the contrary, as a deletion of the 3rd quaver of the bar beginning the soloist part. It seems that the latter is supported by the diagonal cross over the 4th quaver, perhaps written as an additional marking of a new, shifted entry of the soloist. However, a possible variant gives rise to a number of doubts:

  • such marks do not allow for a credible handwriting analysis;
  • the meaning of the entries is uncertain – neither the lines, nor the cross, otherwise a very typical mark of Chopin-teacher, give rise to an unambiguous interpretation;
  • the person using FEH played the entire version for one piano, which is proven by entries in the Tutti (cf. e.g. bars 305-307). It is possible that the entry, even if it defines an authentic variant, was supposed, according to Chopin, to concern the version for one piano only.

Therefore, the given version must be approached with great caution as a possible variant of uncertain authenticity.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH