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. 167

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Fingering written into FEJ

No teaching fingering
..

We give the Chopinesque fingering written in pencil to FEJ.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEJ

b. 167-168

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

e tied in FE (→EE)

e repeated in GE
..

The missing tie of e may be a mere oversight of the engraver of GE; however, the inaccurate placement of the slur in FE may mean that it was added in the proofreading. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 167

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

Crotchet f1 in FE (→EE)

No crotchet f1 in GE

Quaver f1 suggested by the editors
..

The rhythmic notation of the 2nd and 3rd quavers of the bar is inaccurate in the sources. In FE (→EE), the f1 semiquaver is provided with an additional crotchet stem and also with a tie sustaining it to the next f1 on the 3rd quaver. As a result, the value of the crotchet was written in two ways, which seems to be a superfluous complication, particularly since prolongation of the respective note in the L.H. was marked only with a tie (imprecisely yet indisputably). In the main text, we suggest adding a quaver flag, which results in a precise notation taking into account all elements of the authentic notation. GE omitted the additional stem, which simplified but also impoverished the notation. Moreover, GE1 (→GE2) overlooked the tie of b (added in GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 167

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

No mark in FE (→GE,EE)

Long accent in FED

Same accent suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest the accent added by Chopin in FED as a possible clarification of performance. While writing the Concerto, Chopin could have considered an emphasis on the minor subdominant, breaking the strictly diatonic sequence and preparing the eventual consolidation of a new key, A major, to be obvious; however, the pupil's performance of this place apparently lacked in the relevant importance.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 167

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

..

On the 2nd beat of the bar in AI, there are no naturals lowering f to f and d1 to d1. Chopin's inaccuracy is proven by an analogy with b. 159, by the presence of d both in the D major key in b. 165 and F major key starting from the 2nd beat of b. 166 and, above all, by the presence of these naturals in all the remaining sources.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Omission of current key accidentals