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. 315-316

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

Fingering written into FED, bar 315

Fingering written into FEFo, bar 315-316

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE
..

All indications denote almost certainly the same fingering. In the main text, we give the two ones written in FEFo, crucial in this context.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FEH , Annotations in FEFo

b. 315

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

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 315

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Long accent in GE1

Short accent in FE (→EE)

No mark in GE2
..

It is difficult to say how accurately the notation of the manuscripts was reproduced in the editions. Both versions are, of course, possible. In the main text we give the notation of FE (→EE) due to the Chopinesque additions to the dynamic markings in this and the previous bar, introduced at the stage of proofreading of FE. The absence of the mark in GE2 is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 315

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

2 staccato dots in A

Wedge in GE (→FE)

2 wedges in EE
..

In the main text we keep the two staccato dots visible in A over the f notes opening the semiquaver triplets. The fact that the first one was omitted in GE (→FE) most probably resulted from lack of space under the R.H. b semiquaver written on the bottom stave (in EE a wedge was added under this f). The second dot having been replaced by a wedge must have been an arbitrary decision of the engraver of GE1 – see bars 271-272.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 315

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Wedges to 2nd & 3rd octave in AsI

Dot & 2 wedges in A

Wedges to 1st & 3rd octave in GE1 (→GE2)

No marks in FE & EE

3 wedges in GE3
..

The three bass octaves are provided with staccato marks in A. Only the first one is a dot, which seems to be Chopin's inadvertence – it is supported by both the next two L.H. wedges and the R.H. wedges in these places. In this case, we consider the unification process carried out by GE to be justified and adopt it to the main text. The omission of the second mark in GE1 (→GE2) must have resulted from lack of space; the wedge was added in GE3. The easiest explanation for the fact that the versions of FE and EE are devoid of marks would be oversights.
The absence of the first staccato mark in AsI almost certainly resulted from an inaccurate nature of this working manuscript, in which performance indications appear only in some fragments (to a varying degree of intensity).

category imprint: Differences between sources

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