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. 262-264

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

4 accents in A & GE2

3 accents in GE1

3 accents in FE

3 accents in EE
..

In bars 252 and 264, A features clear accents on the second and penultimate quavers; such an accentuation scheme is repeated twice more in analogous bars. Therefore, omission of the 1st accent in bar 264 in GE1 (→FE→EE) must be a mistake. The accents in FE are placed inaccurately, hence in EE they were put a quaver earlier, on the 1st and 7th notes of the bar, which is a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies

b. 262

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Staccato dot in FE (→GE) & EE3
..

In EE1 (→EE2), the engraver overlooked the staccato dot over a2. The mark was added by the reviser of EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 262

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

..

FE is missing a natural before the penultimate note in the bar; however, the accidental is present before the previous semiquaver, d3. Therefore, it can be likely that the engraver put an accidental before the wrong note, although Chopin would also occasionally write accidentals in such an illogical manner. In GE, the  was moved to before c3, whereas EE added the necessary ​​​​​​​ without removing the one from before d3. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 262

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

No sign in FE (→GE,EE)

[] suggested by the editors
..

When interpreted literally, the authentic indications of dynamic nature do not create a coherent vision – the dolciss. indication appears in the middle of the bar after  in bars 260-261, without noticeable connection to melody, harmony or rhythm. Due to this reason, we suggest adding a ​​​​​​​ mark in the main text. However, it is only one of possible interpretations of the original notation – it cannot be excluded that dolciss. should start earlier, i.e. at the beginning of the bar or after the rest. Therefore, it would be an example of the use of the early convention of placing indications within their scope of validity (Chopin would apply it on a number of occasions, particularly in his earlier pieces).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Centrally placed marks

b. 262-263

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

No slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in GE3

Same slur suggested by the editors
..

It seems to be unlikely that Chopin could have imagined a different articulation of semiquavers than in the adjacent bars; therefore, we consider the missing slur to be an inaccuracy of notation, quite frequent in this Concerto, cf. e.g. 1st mov., bars 201-202.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions