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. 204

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

e1 tied in A & GE2

e1 repeated in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The missing tie of e1 in GE1 (→FE→EE) is certainly a mistake. The tie could have been taken for a phrase mark.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 204

composition: Op. 19, Bolero

 

[] suggested by the editors
..

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 204

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

No marks in sources

Staccato dots suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest adding staccato dots after analogous bar 206. Articulation markings (staccato, slurs) and accents are quite numerous in this fragment, yet inconsistent.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 204

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

..

In FE, there are no accidentals before the 4th and 8th semiquavers in the bar; at the same time, due to the use of an octave sign in the notation of the 1st beat of the bar, it is only the  before the 4th note that is to be considered necessary. In EE, this exact mark was added, whereas in GE, which rejected the octave sign, both necessary sharps were added.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 204

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

Slur from semiquaver in FE

No slur in GE1 (→GE2)

Slur from quaver in EE & GE3
..

In the 1st half of the bar, FE has different slurs for the R.H. and for the L.H. We unify them in the main text by changing the slur in the L.H. after the slur in the R.H. A similar change was introduced in EE and GE3; in turn, the missing slur in the L.H. in GE1 (→GE2) is almost certainly a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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