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. 205

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

Slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slurs in EE

Slurs in GE3
..

In the 1st half of the bar, FE (→GE1→GE2) 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. In GE3, the slurs were changed in the parts of both hands, assimilating the slurring of this bar to analogous bar 449. According to us, this solution, generally totally arbitrary, may be considered a justified attempt at reconstructing Chopin's intention, assuming it was inaccurately reproduced by FE (after all, it is quite likely that it was already in [A] that the slurs were being written hastily and inaccurately).  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 205-206

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Tied d2 in A (→FC→GE1→GE2, →FE→EE)

Tied e2 in GE3
..

GE3 arbitrarily introduced here the version of analogous b. 73-74, in which FC (→GE1) misinterprets the notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 205

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Small crotchet in A (→FC,FE)

Acciaccatura with slur in GE

Small quaver with slur in EE
..

Like in b. 73, it is only the notation of A (→FC,FE) that is undoubtedly authentic. We consider the notation of GE acceptable too. The notation of EE is inauthentic, although most probably equivalent to the remaining ones.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 205

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In FE (→GE), there is no  restoring d2 on the 6th note of the run (like in b. 61). In turn, the mark is present in EE, unlike in b. 61, in which both this mark and the  restoring e2 two notes later are absent. It suggests that the  restoring e2 in b. 61 and 205 was added in FE in the last stage of proofreading, not included in EE, and that the reviser of EE added two naturals only in b. 205. However, there are no visible traces of correction in FE that would confirm the above assumption.

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

b. 205

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

No dashes in A (→FE→EE)

Dashes in GE

Dashes suggested by the editors
..

The il più forte possible indication in b. 206 seems to be a natural end point for cresc. from b. 203. Therefore, we consider the absence of the dashes marking the range of the dynamic change in b. 205 to be an inaccuracy of notation; consequently, we suggest adding them in the main text. Such an addition was also introduced by GE (probably on the basis of a similar reasoning).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions