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. 153

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

Slur from e1 in GC

No slur in FE (→EE1)

Slur from g1 in GE

Slur from g in EE2
..

It is unclear which slur Chopin meant, since the absence of a slur in FE (→EE1) does not allow us to confront the version of GC with another source modelled after [A]. According to us, the slur of GC may be inaccurate, hence we adopt the more natural version of GE. The slur of EE2, probably modelled after GE, was, however, led from g, which may influence its meaning to a certain extent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 153-155

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

3 accents in GC & FE (→EE)

No marks in GE
..

In GE, most probably due to the engraver's inattention, there is no R.H. accent in any of these bars. See also bars 158-159.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 153

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

FE (→GE,EE)

Arpeggio sign given by Mikuli

Variant given by Mikuli

Our variant suggestion
..

Both variants were given in the edition edited by Chopin's pupil, Karol Mikuli (Kistner, Leipzig 1879). Mikuli did not specify their origin, but defining the variant with the group of 6 semiquavers as "performance after Chopin" suggests memories and notes from the time of personal contacts between the editor and composer. It is also known that Mikuli had some insight into currently lost pupils' copies of Chopin's other pupils, e.g. Fryderyka Streicher-Müller (cf. the Sonata in B minor, op. 35, the 1st mov., bar 120). In the main text, we suggest the version of FE (→GE,EE), with a possibility of including the arpeggio of the third, indicated by Mikuli.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 153-154

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

Staccato dots in FE

No marks in GE & EE
..

The missing staccato dots in EE and GE may be attributed to either a common oversight of the engraver or an omission due to misunderstanding of this subtle articulation detail – cf. a similar situation in the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bar 90. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE

b. 153

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

Slur from first beat in FE (→EE)

Slur from 2nd beat in GE
..

The slur in FE (→EE) is most probably inaccurate, hence in the main text, we give the version of GE, which, according to us, guesses correctly Chopin's possible notation. Too spacious slurs, written with a flourish, are a frequent phenomenon in the Chopinesque autographs.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions