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. 259-265

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Pedalling in EE

No markings in GC (→GE)

Pedalling in FE

Our variant suggestion
..

The absence of pedal marks in GC (→GE) is most probably the copyist's error (see also note to bar 266). The pedalling of EE is probably authentic (cf. a similar solution in bars 268-271, confirmed both by EE and by GC). In FE, the placement of the  in bar 259 seems doubtful and we consider it to be an inaccuracy almost certainly resulting from faulty understanding of the hand-written base text , as well as the lack of space around the note D1 (cf. bar 267). In our main text we suggest two, most probably authentic, versions of pedalling (EE and FE modified in bar 259 ) as variants.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of GC

b. 259-260

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

Pedalling in GC & GE2

No pedal signs in GE1

Pedalling in FE (incomplete)

Pedalling in EE

Our suggestion
..

In the main text we give a pedalling based on GC, in which we move the  sign in bar 259, written by the copyist probably one quaver too early, to the 3rd beat of the bar, in accordance with the harmonic sense. According to us, the authenticity of the pedalling of EE cannot be excluded, which, as a result, can be considered to be equivalent. The oversight of the aforementioned  in FE is a patent mistake, however, in the absence of sufficient premises, the place where it should be added cannot be indicated. Moreover, patent oversights of the engravers are the absence of the  sign at the end of bar 260 in FE and the total absence of the pedalling in GE1, which, in GE2 was precisely corrected after GC.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 259-260

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

No markings in sources

Accents & slurs suggested by the editors
..

In the sources the only performance marking in these bars is a  hairpin. The later additions of slurs in the proofreading of GE1 (the L.H.) and FE1 (the R.H.) prove that it is an inaccuracy, which Chopin himself tried to correct (although randomly). Therefore, in the main text we suggest adding accents and slurs after bars 257-258.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 259-260

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

..

This and the next slur were added by us.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 259-260

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

Triplet-slurs in A

2 slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Slur in GE2

2 slurs suggested by the editors
..

Chopin wrote only triplet slurs in these bars. A comparison with the previous phrase suggests that it is an inaccuracy, perhaps following from the smorz. and rallent. indications, impeding writing the slurs. Therefore, in the main text we suggest slurs analogous to bars 257-258. The slurs in GE1 (→FE→EE) – the two-bar slur and the distorted triplet one in bar 259 – are probably a result of a revision and inaccuracy respectively (GE2 overlooked the slur in bar 259).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Authentic corrections of GE