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. 128

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV

e2-c3 in A

e2-c3 in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

In A the accidental to the bottom note of the sixth at the beginning of the bar could be both a  and a :

  • the right vertical line, clearly longer than the left one and ended with a characteristic hook, is often present in naturals but almost never in sharps;
  • it is only the top horizontal line that goes beyond the two vertical ones, while in regular sharps it is always both that stick out.

According to us, it means that Chopin most probably changed the  to a , hence e2 to e2. Therefore, in the main text we provide e2 as probably the later version. It is difficult to say why GE (→FE,EE,IE) include e2, yet, taking into account the described irregularities concerning the shape of this accidental, it could be a mere misinterpretation of A. Another possibility could be revision due to the key of C minor (present in the previous bar) and a similar pattern in bars 130-132, closed with an extended cadence in C minor. Therefore, this version, probably authentic yet earlier, can be considered an acceptable variant.

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

issues: Corrections in A , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 128-129

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV

..

In A there is no  to c2 in bar 128, as Chopin considered the accidental to c3 at the beginning of the bar to be valid. GE (→FE,EE,IE) did not add the accidental either. Moreover, in A the  to f1 in bar 128 and the  to e2 in bar 129 are missing; these inaccuracies were corrected in GE (→FE,EE,IE). In the main text we add cautionary naturals to d and d2 at the beginning of bar 129, as well as – in accordance with the rules we adopted to our edition – a  to b2 at the end of bar 129.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 128-130

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV

No fingering in A (→GE→FE,IE)

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text, we do not include the inauthentic R.H. fingering added by EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 129-130

composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor

in A

in GE1 (→FE→EE)

in GE2 (→GE3)

An alternative proposed by the editors
..

In  A, the dashes marking the extent of dim. appear only in bar 129. This may suggest limiting the binding scope of the dynamic change to that bar alone, which does not seem justified from the musical point of view considering the  in bar 131. In our opinion, inaccurate notation may be suspected here, and therefore we suggest adding the dashes in bar 130. In GE (→FE→EE) the dashes were omitted entirely, a frequent error found in the editions. In GE2 (→GE3) Chopin's dim. was replaced with the equivalent abbreviation dimin.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 129-139

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE

Literal reading of GC (→GE1)

Markings in GC, contextual interpretation

Slur in FE

Markings in GE2
..

For our main text we adopt the version of GC. That version was also reproduced in GE, albeit inaccurately (the slur in bar 135) and it was additionally revised in GE2 (dots in the L.H. in bars 129-130). The notation of EE may also be considered a less accurate rendition of that version. The long slur of FE was added in print, probably at Chopin's request, and replaced a shorter one beginning from bar 134, which was definitely erroneous. That version should be therefore considered an alternative authentic approach to phrasing and articulation markings for that fragment. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in GC