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

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

on 4th beat in A & FESB

on 3rd beat in GE (→FE1,EE)
..

According to us, the placement of the  indication is an example of Chopin using here a convention of writing indications within and not at the beginning of the scope of their validity. Due to the above, in the main text we give preference to the version of GE (→FE1,EE). The version of FESB resulted from the engraver's inaccuracy, and its compliance with A must be accidental, since throughout the entire piece, no features of FESB suggest that this publisher could have had an insight into A. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Centrally placed marks , Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 263

composition: Op. 43, Tarantella

 
 
..

In GE there is no accent on the second beat of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 263-264

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

Pedalling in GC (literal reading) & GE2

Pedalling in GC (possible interpretation→GE1)

Another interpretation of GC suggested by the editors

Pedalling in FE (→EE)
..

It is not certain who interpreted Chopin's intention in [A] more accurately – the copyist in GC (→GE) or the engraver of FE (→EE). According to us, an earlier change of pedal in FE seems to be less likely. The notation of GC may be interpreted in three ways, out of which the literal interpretation, adopted in GE2, is dubious from the pianistic point of view. The remaining two – given in GE1 and our main text – are natural from the pianistic point of view and can be considered to be equal. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 263-264

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

No dashes in sources

Dashes suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest extending the dashes marking the range of cresc. until  in bar 264, in accordance with the musical sense.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 263-264

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

..

In A the second halves of these bars are written in an abbreviated manner as minims with a quaver tremolo. In GE1 and subsequent editions, the quavers were written without abbreviations.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions