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. 293-299

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

No marks in A (→GE1→FE→EE)

Accents on c in GE2
..

In GE2 accents in the L.H. were added at the beginning of bars 293, 295, 297 and 299. It is a part of a more extensive revision, in which all articulation markings of the R.H. (dots and slurs) were repeated in the L.H. part.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 293-297

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

Slurs under triplets in A

No lower slurs in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The slur visible in A under the quaver triplet in bars 293 and 297 was most probably overlooked both in GE1 and in GE2 (it is understandable in bar 293, in which the slur blends into the  sign). We do not convey these slurs in the main text, since they seem to be triplet slurs, which we generally do not include (General Editorial Principles, p. 16), and which could have been left in A by accident. However, it is not a typical situation, hence it cannot be excluded that Chopin indeed envisaged double slurs in this place.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Triplet slurs

b. 293

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Hairpin in FE (→GE)

Hairpin in EE
..

In EE, the hairpin begins already on the 1st note of the bar. It is an arbitrary revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 293

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

b. 293

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Fingering in A

No fingering in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

The digit 1, which in this context means that the f note should be taken over by the L.H., was ignored both by the copyist and the engraver of FE. A similar situation can be found in analogous b. 395, which makes us assume that Chopin could have added those digits in A already after having drawn up FC. See also b. 374. This is the only example of a silent takeover of a tied note by the other hand by means of fingering in Chopin's output. In a few other situations, the takeover was indicated by a corresponding rhythmic notation (the Nocturne in E major, Op. 62 No. 2, b. 35 & 73) or by a combination of vertical slurs before the chord (the Sonata in B minor, I mov., b. 103).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC