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. 120

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

Digits added to Chopin's fingering in FEH

Chopin's fingering in FE (→GE)

Chopin's & Fontana's fingering in EE
..

Both EE and FEH completed the Chopinesque printed fingering. Chopin copied the distance of a fourth between the 3rd and 4th fingers also in the 1st mov. of the Concerto, in bar 449.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FEH

b. 120-122

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

Slur to end of bar 122 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur to bar 122 in GE3
..

The longer slur of GE3 corresponds with its range to the slur featured in the next passage (bars 124-126) in FE. Since the aforementioned slur of FE, having been added probably in the last phase of proofreading, seems to be more credible, it cannot be excluded that the version of GE3 may correspond to the composer's intention. Therefore, it can be considered a variant of uncertain authenticity. In such a context, both versions have practically the same meaning.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 120-122

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

No L.H. slur in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slur to end of bar 121 in EE, contextual interpretation

Slur to bar 122 in GE3
..

The added slur in the L.H. is obviously musically justified. However, in the main text we keep the original notation, since Chopin used both notations in similar contexts – with a slur only over the R.H., valid by default also for the L.H., or with separate slurs for both hands. Both EE and GE3 added a slur corresponding to the slur in the R.H. – in EE to the end of bar 121, and in GE3 to e3. The slur in EE begins only just in bar 121 (on a new line); however, its beginning points to continuation from the previous bar.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , GE revisions

b. 120-121

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Continuous slur in FE (→GE)

2 slurs in EE
..

In the main text we preserve the slur of FE (→GE), which is most probably authentic. We consider the version of EE, which one can see as an editorial revision or as the initial version of this fragment, to be a variant of uncertain authenticity.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 120-122

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

in AF (→FE)

  in GE

No signs in EE

  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we follow the marks of GE, in which the markings are more accurate in this fragment (pedalling in b. 117-121,  in b. 119). The only element we modify is the ending of the mark, since b. 121 closes a line in this edition; therefore, even if the notation of [AG] resembled the one of AF, the engraver could have considered the placement of a very short ending of a hairpin in a new line to be irrational. The version of AF (→FE) can be considered an equal variant.
In fact, the difference may be subtle – the mark of AF suggest the most emphasis on the crotchet ending b. 120, whereas in the version of GE such a local climax can be this chord or the minim in b. 121.
The missing mark in EE is probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE