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. 179

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I

Slur from 2nd quaver in A (→GE→EE,IE)

Slur from first quaver in FE
..

The A slur is clearly visible only from the 4th quaver; however, traces of pen are visible from the 2nd quaver. This is how it was reproduced by GE (→EE,IE). According to us, the later starting point of this slur than the one suggested by the phrase structure is an inaccuracy, probably caused by lack of space – a slur starting from the 1st quaver would intersect the natural, which could hamper the interpretation of this fragment. Due to the above, in the main text we begin the slur from the 1st quaver, as in bar 1 and as it was interpreted by FE.
See also bars 181 and 182-183.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , FE revisions

b. 179

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

 in FE (→GE), contextual interpretation

in EE
..

In FE (→GE) we can see here "zf", which we change to the correct . The issue of the Chopinesque notation of forzato and its variants in other sources is discussed in detail in the note in bar 1. In EE it was revised differently, arbitrarily, providing a  indication.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 179

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I

 &  in A, literal reading

 in A (contextual interpretation→GE→FE,EE,IE)

 in A, possible interpretation
..

The presence of two mutually exclusive dynamic indications in A can be explained by an unfinished correction – Chopin first wrote one indication and then the other one, probably planning to erase the first one together with the other marks that were supposed to be removed (e.g. the staccato dots in bar 102 or  in bar 155). However, the corrections remained unfinished, hence it is uncertain whether Chopin wanted to restore , in accordance with the dynamics at the beginning of the Sonata, or to introduce , which would provide the recapitulation with a different expressive nuance. According to us, the first possibility is more likely, hence in the main text we provide . A similar conclusion was reached by the reviser of GE (→FE,EE,IE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 179

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

..

In FE the  raising c4 to c4 was overlooked, which was noticed and supplemented both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions

b. 179

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

Wedge in FE

No mark in GE

Staccato dot in EE
..

It seems that the aim of the EE reviser's intervention could have been the standardisation of marks in both parts of hands – the L.H. chord is provided with a dot, as the preceding ones, which makes this mark more reliable than the single wedge in the R.H. in this fragment. However, in the main text we keep the FE markings, as the use of different marks in the parts of both hands can be easily explained by the textural context – the L.H. chord continues the current course, while the R.H. octave does not.
The absence of the mark in GE is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Wedges