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. 122

composition: Op. 19, Bolero

No indication in FE (→GE,EE)

[] suggested by the editors
..

We suggest adding  for the 1st quaver in the L.H. The marking was placed by Chopin in the reprise in bar 234.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 122

composition: Op. 19, Bolero

..

In FE, there is a visible trace of proofreading of the ending of the slur that initially encompassed bar 122 only.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 122

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

..

The cautionary flats before B and b at the beginning of the bar were added in the proofreading of FE (→EE). It seems to be likely that it was done by Chopin, who introduced cautionary flats before e and e1 in an analogous situation in the next bar already in A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 122

composition: Op. 19, Bolero

No wedges in FE (→GE,EE1)
 

Wedges in EE2 (→EE3)
 
..

The reviser of EE2 (→EE3) arbitrarily added wedges for the a-c1-e1 chords in the L.H. (similarly as in bars 94-95).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 122

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

e tied in FE (→GE) & EE2(→EE3)

e repeated in EE1
..

The missing tie of e may be an oversight of the engraver of EE1, corrected in EE2 (→EE3). However, it cannot be excluded that the omission of the tie was a decision of the reviser who considered the tie to be a mistake, noticing that Chopin could have written e as a semibreve, like in bar 116.
The dash visible in FEH before the 2nd e minim is perhaps related to the issue of sustaining it (as long as it conveys anything specific at all). Its authenticity and meaning are, however, unclear – one can interpret it as a strikethrough of the tie, which would mean a repetition of e, or a deletion of the tie and this minim, which would emphasise no repetition. In the face of these doubts, we do not include this mark. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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