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. 172-173

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

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 172

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In the main text, we add naturals before the 1st and 3rd semiquavers of the 2nd half of the bar (a2 and e3). The absence of accidentals in such a configuration was not considered a mistake back in Chopin's times – the accidentals from the 1st half of the bar, although they refer to a1 and e2, were considered to be valid also in the case of a2 and e3 in the further part of the bar, encompassed with an octave sign.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 172

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No marks in FE (→GE,EE)

Staccato dots suggested by the editors
..

We consider the missing staccato dots at the beginning of the bar to be an inaccuracy – cf. 3 previous, analogous bars.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 172

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

 in FE (→GE) & EE2

No marking in EE1
..

The absence of  in EE1 may mean that Chopin added this indication in the last stage of proofreading of FE. The mark was added in EE2, probably on the basis of comparison with GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 172

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

Continuous slur in AI, GE & FE (→EE)

2 slurs in AF, literal reading
..

In AF the slur breaks here; however, it is uncertain whether it was supposed to indicate a division of the slur – one can see it as an inaccurately written combination of the slurs, which is how it was interpreted in FE (→EE). In the main text we give the continuous slur of GE, which almost certainly corresponds to the notation of [AG]. See also the note in the next bar.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A