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. 391

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No slur in FE (→GE,EE)

Slur suggested by the editors
..

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 392

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

Sixth in A & GE2

a2 alone in GE1 (→FE→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

The absence of the bottom note in GE1 (→FE→EE) may be considered an oversight of the engraver of Chopin's proofreading – in similar bar 48, there is a sole a2 as the grace note.
In GE1, the head of the grace note is placed at the right pitch, but the ledger line was overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 392-393

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

after 4th quaver in FE (→EE)

before or under 4th quaver in GE
..

As in bars 384-385, the earlier placement of the  markings in GE is unintentional, resulting from an inept layout of text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 392

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Staccato dot in FE (→EE)

No mark in GE
..

In FE, the engraver (or Chopin himself in [A]) must have overlooked the staccato dot under the 3rd quaver. The mark, most probably after comparison with the next bar, was added by the revisers of EE and GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 392-393

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No slur in FE (→GE)

Slur in EE
..

The slur in EE is an arbitrary addition, and possibly a mistake – repeating the slurring pattern from previous bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions