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. 133-136

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

Dashes in bars 133-134 in GC

Dashes until end of bar 135 in FE

No dashes in GE1

Dashes in bars 133-135 in EE & GE2

4 bars of dashes suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the differences in the marked range of the cresc. - - - indication are of a random character. In particular, the absence of dashes in bar 136 could have resulted in FE from difficulties in a legible distribution of all elements of the notation of [A] (cf. the notation of GC) or in FE itself, whereas according to Chopin's intention, crescendo was supposed to be valid most probably until  in bar 137. Therefore, in the main text we suggest leading the dashes to the end of bar 136 (see also bars 127-128). The total absence of dashes in GE1 is certainly a mistake (cf. the note on the  hairpin in bars 135-136).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 133-135

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

No slurs in A

Slurs in FE (→GE,EE)
..

Chopin added slurs in bars 133 and 135 while proofreading FE1, as in bars 29 and 31.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 133-150

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Slur over pair of sixths in A

Two slurs in FE (→EE)

Slur e1-d1 in GE1no2 & GE1op (→GE2op→GE3op)

Slur c2-b1 in GE2no2
..

Over the pair of minims in bars 133-134 and 149-150 in the main text we give the slurs written in A. We consider a possible proofreading of Chopin in FE (→EE) to be only an ad hoc intervention, correcting the misleading reproduction of these slurs (preserved in the majority of GE). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 133-134

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A

 in FE (→EEW1→EEW2)

No sign in GE1op (→GE2op→GE3op) & GE1no2

 in EEC & GE2no2
..

The lack of the  hairpin in the majority of GE is probably a result of an oversight of the engraver of FE, which was then corrected in the very FE (→EE). The sign was added in GE2no2 too. We reproduce the range of the sign on the basis of the notation of A. Cf. bars 3-4.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 133-134

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

..

The notation of the rhythm in the sources is misleading, since the d2 minim in bar 133 and the g1 minim in bar 134 are placed over the 2nd quaver in the bar or even after it. Chopin would often use this earlier notational convention, generally in the case of notes filling an entire bar. It is particularly the beginning of bar 133 that raises doubts, in which, at first sight, it seems that after the a1 crotchet one should play the d1-d2 octave. Chopin's addition in FED – a dash combining a1 with d2 – confirms that the text was misinterpreted here by the pupil. Similar ambiguities are present in analogous bars 281-282.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , GE revisions