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. 341-342

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

In EE na GC there is no  augmenting a to a in b. 342, which is obvious inaccuracy given  in the LH part. In GC there is no appropriate  in b. 341. FE and GE are correct.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Errors of GC

b. 341

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

No markings in A (→GE)

  in FE (→EE)

( ) suggested by the editors
..

Both dynamic indications –  and  – were added in the proofreading of FE (→EE), undoubtedly by Chopin. They can be regarded as a completion of the indications of A, but it also seems possible that one can handle this bar with less contrast, which is suggested by the notation of A (→GE). Therefore, we leave their inclusion to the discretion of the performer. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 341

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

..

Chopin added the  hairpin – together with  – in the proofreading of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 341-344

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

Staccato dot in FE

No marks in GE1 (→GE2)

2 wedges in EE & GE3

3 wedges suggested by the editors
..

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 341

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

e3 in FE (→GE1,EE1)

d3 in GE2 i EE2 (→EE3)
..

e​​​​​​​3 as the 5th semiquaver in FE (→GE1,EE1) is almost certainly a mistake – disturbing a regular progression is both harmonically and melodically unjustified. The engraver's mistake could have been provoked by resemblance of the 2nd half of that bar to the 1st half of the next one – such a hypothesis is confirmed by visible traces of removal of the  from before a3, the 7th semiquaver in bar 341, in FE. The revisers of GE2 and EE2 (→EE3) corrected that note.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

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