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. 297

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

f1 in EE, GC (→GE) & FE1

g1 in FE2
..

In FE2 the topmost note of the chord was arbitrarily changed from f1 to g1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions

b. 297

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

g in R.H. in EE & GC (→GE)

g in L.H. in FE
..

In FE, the note g is allocated to the L.H. It is hard to tell whether it reflects the notation of the hand-written base text for that edition or is a result of misunderstanding Chopin's notation by the engraver. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 297

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

Chord in A

No cue in GE & EE

F in FE, contextual interpretation
..

In GE1, the omission of the chord of strings (together with the following rest) written in A may be considered a mistake – as a result of corrections, Chopin moved the notation of the solo part to an adjacent stave, which could have misled the engraver. It is difficult to say why these elements were omitted also in GE2. In this place FE has an erroneous G crotchet (and a rest). It can be a misunderstood proofreading of Chopin, hence we adopt the F crotchet, being harmonically correct, as the text of FE. However, it is highly likely that it was the beginning of the next bar that was printed here. EE omitted the erroneous notation of FE.

Contrary to other minor replicas from the orchestral part of this type, the discussed chord, same as the crotchets in the next bar, are only an illustration of the harmonic sequence of the orchestral accompaniment and they are certainly not to be performed, even in the solo performance.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 297

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

..

In A there is no cautionary  before d3. The sign was added in GE (→FE→EE). In the main text we omit the unnecessary  before a2 in the last group of semiquavers present in the sources.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 297-298

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

Motivic slurs in A (→GE1)

Whole-bar slurs in FE

Whole-bar slurs in both hands in EE

Motivic slurs in both hands in GE2
..

It cannot be excluded that the slurs of GE1, compliant with A, were corrected by Chopin in the last phase of proofreading, whereas the whole-bar long slurs of FE reproduce the state prior to the proofreading. Traces of such a change are visible in GE1 in a similar situation in bars 295-296. Anyway, the slurs of FE (→EE) are certainly erroneous, whereas the analogous slurs added in EE in the L.H. are inauthentic – it is difficult to assume that Chopin would order to copy an erroneous slurring. The slurs in the L.H. added in GE2 actually specify the notation of A, yet they cannot come from Chopin, since the edition was developed after his death on the basis of GE1 compared with A. In this situation, it can be considered almost certain that all slurs in the L.H. added in EE and GE2 in the entire section until bar 308 are an arbitrary revision – cf. notes on bars 293-294, 295-304, 301-302, 303-304 and 306-308.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1