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. 304

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

We add a cautionary  to e1 in the main text.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 304

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No slur in sources

Slur added by the editors
..

In this bar, we consider the absence of the first out of two slurs present in previous two, analogous bars to be Chopin's inadvertence (the composer's distraction probably also impacted the  mark). What is determined by this slur – the motif's structure and articulation – must be compliant with the previous bars, which excludes the possibility that the slur was omitted on purpose. Taking into account the above, in the main text we add a relevant slur. Cf. the notes in bar 300.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 305

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

Crotchet c1 in A (literal reading→GE→FE→EE)

No crotchet in A (contextual interpretation)
..

The alleged additional crotchet stem next to c1 visible in A is, according to us, an exceptionally imposing trace of Chopin's reflex at the time of writing notes on ledger lines. In order to secure visibility of such a note, the composer would give the note head the shape of a vertical line – see analogous note in bar 303. Sometimes, particularly when writing in haste (as in this case), the lines were long enough to look like a crotchet stem pointing downwards (a slightly shorter line in bar 301 did not mislead the engraver). See also the Etude in F major, Op. 10 No. 8, bars 4-7. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Uncertain notes on ledger lines , Inaccuracies in A

b. 305-306

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

..

In A there is not any  raising e2(3,4) to e2(3,4). It is almost certainly Chopin's mistake – if he were to hear e in this place, he would have used a cautionary flat in this context. The composer also omitted the naturals raising d1(2) to d1(2), which clearly proves that the figures (whose sound, written after so many repetitions, he regarded as obvious) were written hastily and inaccurately. Anyway, the naturals (e2, d2 and e4) added in the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2) and uncontested by the composer both in FE and FED clearly prove his intention. In EE, naturals were added also next to d1 and d4, whereas in GE2 – next to e3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 305-308

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

dolciss. - - in A

dolciss. in GE (→FE→EE)

dolciss. - - [-] suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the dashes marking the range of the dolciss. indication must be an inaccuracy of GE (→FE→EE). In the main text, we extend the dashes to the end of the passage.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE