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. 393

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

Slur in FE (→EE)

No slur in GE
..

The missing slur in GE is most probably an oversight – the engraver overlooked both elements (the slur and the  hairpin) – present between the staves.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 393

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

 in FE (→EE)

No sign in GE
..

The missing  in GE could be explained by the possibility that the mark was added in the last proofreading of FE; however, the additional absence of the slur in the L.H. in this bar makes a possible inadvertence of the engraver of GE more likely; the engraver overlooked a certain stage of work here – the elements between the staves, unrelated to the particular notes. See also bar 394.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 393

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

..

In GE3, the last four chords were written in an abbreviated manner as a minim with a quaver tremolo.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 393

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Short accent in FE (→GE,EE)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the short accent in FE (→GE,EE) is an inaccuracy of the engraver – cf. a much longer sign in similar bar 385.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 393-394

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

Tie to f​​​​​​​1 in FE, possible interpretation

Slur ​​​​​​​​- in FE (different interpretation→GE1→GE2)​​​​​​

Slur & tie in EE

Neither slur nor tie in GE3
..

The curved line in FE is present only in the 2nd half of bar 393 (the last on a page), and it is unclear whether it runs from d1 or f​​​​​​​1. In the face of the missing ending in bar 394, it is difficult to determine its nature – it can be a motivic slur combining d1-e1,  like it was reproduced in GE1 (→GE2), or a tie of f1. The version of EE with two curved lines is probably arbitrary. In addition, it cannot be excluded that the very presence of a curved line in this place is a mistake; perhaps it was meant to be a tie of f1 in bar 392-393 – cf. the tie in bars 400-401 (it was considered erroneous probably in GE3).

In the main text, we omit this unclear and dubious marking, which results in a version compliant with analogous bars 397-398. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions