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. 227

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In FE, there are no accidentals whatsoever in this bar. It is undoubtedly an error commited possibly by Chopin in [A] – cf. Etude in F minor, op. 25 no. 2, bar 56. Accidentals were added in both GE and EE:

  • the reviser of EE1 (→EE2) took the FE version at face value, and added a cautionary  before the lower note of the third on the 2nd quaver, thus confirming a1 there. This mistaken addition was corrected in EE3 after the analogous bar 59.
  • in GE the correct text was introduced immediately.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals

b. 227

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. 227

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Accent next to f1 in FE (→EE)

Accent under f1 in GE

Accent suggested by the editors
..

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 227

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No mark in A (→FE→EE)

 in FC (literal reading→GE1)

Short accent in GE2 (→GE3)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

Interpretation of the  mark entered by Chopin into FC is problematic. Placed under the top stave, like all other dynamic hairpins in this theme, it seems to fill almost an entire bar. It was interpreted as such in GE1; it is that literal interpretation that we assume as the text of FC. However, a comparison with analogous b. 95 allows us to recognise another interpretation: in both bars Chopin most probably meant a long accent. The flamboyantly written top arm of the hairpin starts before the minim, to which this mark undoubtedly applies; it is typical of the notation of long accents, cf., e.g. the mark in the next bar or precisely in b. 95. The bottom, shorter arm, written last, may be considered more reliable in terms of the intended length of the sign, and it is as long as the unquestionable long accent in b. 228. Due to the above reason, in the main text we reproduce the mark as a long accent, like in b. 95. GE2 (→GE3) also unified this mark with b. 95.
There is a similar situation in b. 678. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 227-228

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A

No slur in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

Like in b. 95-96, none of the secondary sources repeated the slur over the b-a motif that Chopin entered into A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC