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. 275

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

Additional crotchet stem to e1 in A & FE (→EE)

No crotchet stem in GE
..

The engraver of GE1 could have considered the extension of e1 to be a mistake or he committed a mistake himself. The stem was restored – most probably at Chopin's request – in FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 275

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

b2(3) in A (literal reading→GE1→FE→EE)

b2(3) in A, possible interpretation

b2(3) in GE2
..

In A (→GE1→FE→EE) there are no accidentals before the 6th and 10th notes of the roulade (in relation to a notation with an octave sign in Chopin's times, a possible sign was required only before the 6th note). Formally speaking, it should read b2 and b3, yet in ascending passages Chopin would generally use altered interchangeable notes (cf. e.g. bars 87, 95, 143, 175-178, 247-248, 331-334 in this movement), which suggests a possibility of overlooking naturals resulting in b2 and b3. In the main text we give a version based on an assumption that Chopin's notation does not contain mistakes, adding a cautionary  before b2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 275

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

..

In GE1 (→FE→EE) a  was overlooked, in A raising b1 to b1. The mistake was corrected in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 275

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

  in FE, literal reading

 in GE

 in EE
..

When interpreted literally, the  mark in FE falls on a rest. This inaccuracy is most probably a result of a too literal reproduction of the notation of [A], in which Chopin could have not had enough space to write the mark between the bottom stave and the b semiquaver. In the main text, we assume, in accordance with GE and EE, that the mark concerns the beginning of the 2nd beat of the bar. The absence of  in GE is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE

b. 275

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

Staccato dot in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No mark in GE3
..

The missing dot must be an oversight of GE3 – in the previous GE, the dot is hardly noticeable within the 'P' letter in the  mark.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE