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. 167-168

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

 in A & GE2

No pedalling in GE1 (→FE→EE)

 & [], our variant suggestion
..

In A, Chopin did not specify – consciously or not – the moment of pedal release. We suggest two possible pedalling solutions for this place in the main text. No  sign must be an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 167

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Long accent in FE (→GE)

Short accent in EE
..

In EE, the long accent was reproduced as a short one.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions

b. 167

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Fingering written into FEJ

No teaching fingering
..

We give the Chopinesque fingering written in pencil to FEJ.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEJ

b. 167-168

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

e tied in FE (→EE)

e repeated in GE
..

The missing tie of e may be a mere oversight of the engraver of GE; however, the inaccurate placement of the slur in FE may mean that it was added in the proofreading. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 167

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

Crotchet f1 in FE (→EE)

No crotchet f1 in GE

Quaver f1 suggested by the editors
..

The rhythmic notation of the 2nd and 3rd quavers of the bar is inaccurate in the sources. In FE (→EE), the f1 semiquaver is provided with an additional crotchet stem and also with a tie sustaining it to the next f1 on the 3rd quaver. As a result, the value of the crotchet was written in two ways, which seems to be a superfluous complication, particularly since prolongation of the respective note in the L.H. was marked only with a tie (imprecisely yet indisputably). In the main text, we suggest adding a quaver flag, which results in a precise notation taking into account all elements of the authentic notation. GE omitted the additional stem, which simplified but also impoverished the notation. Moreover, GE1 (→GE2) overlooked the tie of b (added in GE3).

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

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