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. 181-182

composition: Op. 43, Tarantella

 
 
 
..

In GE1 slurs over bars 181-182 are parallel and connect upper and lower notes of the dyads accordingly, instead of extending d1 with one tie and mark the motif with another just like it is marked in the other sources. In EE the second slur was omitted. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies

b. 181

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

No sign in GC (→GE)

Arpeggio sign in FE (→EE)
..

No arpeggio in GC (→GE) is most probably an oversight of the copyist.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of GC

b. 181-184

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

Slur to bar 184 in GC & FE (→EE)

Slur to bar 182 in GE
..

The slur of GE must be erroneous; the reason a significant part thereof was overlooked could have been an inaccurate notation of GC – the slur is written so low that it almost touches the R.H. slur in the next line.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 181

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

 from 1st quaver in A (literal reading)

 from 2nd quaver in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2

No indication in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

In A  is written in such a way that it is unclear whether it is to be valid from the first or 2nd quaver in the bar. Both versions can be justified, as far as music is concerned:

  • in the orchestra part – Morch –  is certainly valid from the beginning of the bar, hence it seems to be natural that it is to be placed in the same way in A;
  • the first quaver in this bar belongs still to the solo part and it has to be performed  as such; the piano reduction of the orchestra part begins only from the 2nd quaver and  is to be applied from this place.

According to us, the second reasoning is more convincing. The absence of  in GE1 (→FE→EE) is probably an oversight, since the adjacent accent was overlooked too.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 181

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

Accent in A & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The absence of the accent in the majority of the editions is most probably an oversight of the engraver – in similar motifs (e.g. bars 19-22 or 185) the syncopation is always accented.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions