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. 7-9

composition: Op. 28 No. 12, Prelude in G♯ minor

3 slurs in A, literal reading

3 slurs in A (possible interpretation→FE→EE)

Continuous slur in FC (→GE)
..

The slur over b. 8 encompasses in A 5 top-voice quavers. However, according to us, it is possible that Chopin meant a whole-bar slur, as reproduced in FE (→EE). The slurring of FC is definitely incompatible with the notation of A, although the situation between b. 8-9 is ambiguous in the copy – the slur in b. 8 (at the end of the line) suggests that it should be continued, whereas the slur in b. 9 rather does not. However, as b. 9 is not written out with notes, which impedes a reliable evaluation of the placement of the beginning of the slur, we take into account the ending of the slur in b. 8. This is how it was interpreted in GE too.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 7

composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major

     in A (→FE,FC→GE)

    in EE
..

The missing  signs in EE result almost certainly from engraver's negligence.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE

b. 7

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

e1 in A (→FE→EE1→EE2)

d1 in GE & EE3
..

The version of GE may be either a revision of this edition (cf. the comment on b. 45-47) or a variation introduced by Chopin (e.g. along with Lento – cf. the comment on b. 1). The vast majority of arguments are for the former, i.e. for this chord being arbitrarily revised in GE:

  • clear notation of A, repeated without changes in FE, which was proofread by Chopin twice;
  • testimonies of Chopin's pupils and friends – Marcelina Czartoryska, Friederike Streicher, Ferdinand Hiller and Adolf Gutmann.

Therefore, in the main text we give e1, considering d1 a variant of uncertain authenticity.
The change in EE3 must have been introduced on the basis of a comparison with GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 7

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

f in A

No note in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

In the main text we include the f semibreve present in A. It also appears in all sources of the orchestral part (in violas), including in the later record of this bar in AsI. The absence of that note in the editions most probably resulted from a mistake by the engraver of GE1; perhaps he was uncertain where to put it – more or less in the middle of the bar, as in A, or at the beginning of bar as required by the general rule of vertical alignment of notes played simulaneously.
These variants do not apply to the original version of the opening eight-bar period, written in AsI.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 7

composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major

b-c1 in AI, FE2 (→EE) & GE3

c1-d1 in FE1 (→GE1→GE2)
..

The c1-d1 second in FE1 (→GE1→GE2) must be a mistake (most probably by the engraver), which is proven by b-c1:

  • present in AI,
  • introduced by Chopin in the stage of proofreading FE2 (→EE),
  • present in all sources in bar 75 (upon repetition of this place).

The correct text of GE3 most probably resulted from the fact that a copy of FE2 was used in the revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , FE revisions , Errors repeated in GE