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. 290

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur in GE, literal reading

Arpeggio sign in GE (contextual interpretation) & FE

No sign in EE
..

As was the case with analogous b. 31, the slur of GE, although formally correct, is most probably inaccurate and marks a grace note and an arpeggio (written down as a vertical slur), as was conveyed in FE. The absence of a slur (arpeggio) in EE, whatever the reason, cannot be authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 290

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

FE overlooked the dots prolonging the e-e1 octave. The mistake was corrected in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 290

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

a2-c3 third in AsI & A

Single notes in GE (→FESB,EE1→EE2)

3 thirds in FE & EE3
..

The initial version of AsI and A, with only one a2-c3 third, was additionally depleted by GE (→FESB,EE1→EE2), which did not notice the a2 crotchet at the beginning of bar 291 (it can be difficult to establish the presence of a middle note on ledger lines in Chopin's autographs, although in this case the a2 notehead is quite distinct). While proofreading FE1 (→FE2) Chopin added bottom thirds to the entire three-note motif, which was also taken into account by EE3.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain notes on ledger lines

b. 290

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Single L.H. notes & one-part notation of R.H. chord in AsI & A

Single L.H. notes & two-part notation of R.H. chord in GE (→EE,FESB)

L.H. octaves & R.H. sixth in FE1 (→FE2)
..

In GE (→EE,FESB) the R.H. part was retouched in the version of A – the chord and the sixth on the 2nd and 3rd beats of the bar were written down in two-part writing. It is uncertain whether it was an authentic change – it could have been introduced by the engraver or reviser in order to achieve homogeneous two-part writing.

However, much more serious changes – as was also the case with the previous bar – were introduced in the stage of proofreading FE1 (→FE2), which is proven by the visible traces of corrections, e.g. the outlines of the noteheads of the F and B quavers. At the same time, there is no doubt that they come from Chopin, hence we include them in the main text. In the changed version, an inaccuracy was committed – the f-f1 octave was mistakenly placed under the e2-c3 sixth, which can lead to a mistake in the interpretation of rhythm.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 291-303

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Beginnings of slurs in EE and FE

GC

Slurs in GE
..

As far as beginnings of slurs in bars 291 and 299 are concerned, we decide to give priority to the consistent notation of EE and FE, without trying to reach final conclusions about Chopin's intentions in that respect. In GC, and partly in GE, the slurs in those bars run from the 1st crotchet . GE also has arbitrarily added slurs in the L.H. part. 

category imprint: Differences between sources