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. 392

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

Slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No slur in GE3
..

The missing first slur must be an oversight of GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 392-393

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

f-f1 repeated in A (→FC→GE1)

Only f1 repeated in FE (→EE)

f-f1 tied in GE2 (→GE3)
..

A comparison with b. 266-267 and analog. (7 places in total) points to Chopin's patent mistake. Therefore, in the main text we include the ties added in GE2 (→GE3). The tie of f was added already in FE (→EE), which is probably a revision of the engraver, who added the missing tie in the chord on the bottom stave as part of his routine activities (such routine additions are evidenced in the Mazurka in D Major, Op. 33 No. 3, b. 8-9 and 24-25).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 393-398

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE & FE

Contextual interpretation of the slur in GC (→GE)
..

It is apparent that the slur in GC is imprecise - it ends on the end of b. 398 (b.56), which was rightly corrected in GE by extending it over to the first crotchet. This diminshes GC (→GE) credibility and raises doubts as for the slur's beginning as well. Therefore, in the main text we adopt the consistent version of EE and FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 393

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

in A (→GE)

No marking in FE (→EE)
..

The missing dynamic marking in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 393

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

Quaver e2 in FE (→EE1)

Semiquaver e2 in GE & EE2 (→EE3)
..

The rhythm of GE was introduced as a correction in print (it is proved by: the layout and alignment of the chords in the L.H. as well as the use of a dotted rest and not two rests), most probably as a result of a comparison with the beginnings of analogous phrases of the piano part. However, in the orchestral part (bars 25 and 29), the motif has the same rhythm as FE (→EE1); therefore, there is no reason to suspect a mistake. Summoning this rhythmic variant also in the solo part is justified by further, different development of the phrase, e.g. by the exclusive use of quavers in a similar motif in the 2nd half of bar 395. In EE2 (→EE3), the version with semiquaver was introduced almost certainly on the basis of comparison with GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions