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. 197-198

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

No L.H. slurs in A

2 slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)

1 slur in GE2
..

The slurs in the L.H. added in GE1 (→FE→EE) are most probably inauthentic – the division on the bar line (after the slurs in the R.H.) certainly is not in line with Chopin's intention. Assuming that a possible Chopin proof entry in GE1 was implemented inaccurately, one could consider the slur of GE2 to be in line with his intention. However, it would be then obscure why Chopin did not order to correct the slurs in the R.H. at that time.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 197

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

Continuous slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Separate slurs in FED & GE3
..

The unbroken – in spite of the rest – slur of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) must be a remaining part of the original version of the rhythm (with semiquavers without rest). The need to separate the first two notes from the following semiquavers was confirmed by Chopin with additional marks written in pencil in FED – a slashed line, underlining the significance of the rest (also in bar 201), as well as a slur over the first two semiquavers. Taking that into account, in the main text, we divide the slur, adjusting the phrasing to the rhythmic notation.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , GE revisions , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Inserted rest

b. 197-201

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

..

In FE, the visible traces of proofreading in bars 197, 199 and 201 (as well as 556) show that Chopin changed the rhythmic values of the 2nd and 3rd notes – in the removed version, the 2nd note was a semiquaver, whereas the third one – a demisemiquaver.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Inserted rest

b. 197

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

..

We add cautionary sharps before c2 and c​​​​​​​3 in the main text.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 197-198

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

No marking in FE (→GE1→GE2)

 in EE & GE3

[] suggested by the editors
..

The notation without  mark was probably present already in [A], since an analogous place in bars 441-442 is written in the same manner. Therefore, it is a particular case of omission of ​​​​​​​, used by Chopin at the end of a piece – after all, the solo part ends (temporarily) in bar 198. In this situation, it seems to be natural to hold the pedal to the end of bar 198 like it was indicated in EE and GE3, or a quaver longer, which may be suggested by the notation of the L.H. in bars 442-443. Since the cumulative notation of the solo part and of the piano reduction of the orchestral part causes the authentic notation – without  – to be misleading, in the main text we suggest to add that mark in a way to leave the exact moment of the pedal's release to the discretion of the performer.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , No pedal release mark