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. 272

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

In FE, there is no  raising g1 to g1. This patent inaccuracy could have already been present in the manuscript. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Omission of current key accidentals

b. 272

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

We add a cautionary   before c3.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 272-273

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

Slur from bar 272 in GC (literal reading→GE) & FE (→EE)

Slur from bar 273 in GC (probable interpretation)
..

In the editors' opinion, starting the slur from the last crotchet of bar 272 does not conform to Chopin's intention. Three preceding bars are notated in GC only as a repetition of bar 269; the same was certainly true for [A]. In such a situation it seems probable that the slur over bars 273-276 was supposed to encompass only the written out phrase taken from the middle section of the Scherzo.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 272

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

e1 in A, FE (→EE) & GE2

No e1  in GE1

e1 with  suggested by the editors
..

Chopin added the e1 crotchet, overlooked in GE1, in the proofreading of FE (→EE). It was also added in GE2. In the main text we provide it with a cautionary .

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 272

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

Arpeggio sign, grace notes & accent in A & GE2

Grace notes & arpeggio sign in GE1

Arpeggio sign & grace notes in FE

Arpeggio sign & grace notes in EE

Arpeggio sign, grace notes & accent suggested by the editors
..

The arpeggio with grace notes is written in A in a legible manner, offering a clear image of the order in which the particular notes are to be performed – d1-f1-g1-b1-a1. Unfortunately, the notation cannot be reproduced in print without considerably deforming the spaces between the notes, since the printed note heads are much wider than in Chopin's writing. However, the solution adopted in GE1 is misleading – it suggests a g1-b1-d1-f1-a1 order. It provoked Chopin's proofreading in FE (→EE), as a result of which it is much easier to guess the correct performance. We give the latter, more graphically convenient than the version of A, in the main text.

Apart from the proofreading of the ornaments' notation, in FE (→EE) the division into voices of this chord was also changed – f1, which in A (→GE) is a crotchet of the bottom voice, was assigned in FE to the top one, which shortened its value to a quaver. The difference, although subtle, could have been intended by Chopin, hence in the main text we also give this detail in the version of FE. The note, already as a quaver, was then extended in EE by adding a dot. According to us, also this version, although formally not coming from Chopin, can be a notation of his intention, actually the most precise one.

The missing accent in GE1 (→FE→EE) must be an oversight. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE