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. 303

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In FE there is no bottom voice crotchet under the pair of quavers at the end of the bar. The patent mistake was corrected in FE2 (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 304

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in EE, GC, FE & GE2

No marking in GE1
..

The absence of  in GE1 is definitely an oversight, and it got corrected in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 304

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

a3 in FE (→GE,EE)

b3 as our alternative suggestion
..

The manner the 4th semiquaver was printed in FE raises doubts concerning its pitch; it may have been supposed to be a b3, like in the majority of the editions in analogous bar 288. Due to this reason, we consider that it is permissible to play b3 here if one chose b3 in bar 288.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 304

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

Slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the division of the slur reproduced in the sources is inaccurate, which is facilitated by such configuration. A possible interruption of legato would require shortening f3, written as a quaver, whereas the accented beginning of the slur (b2) would interfere with the long accent on the next note, g2. Therefore, in the main text we suggest modifying the slurs, eliminating the above defects, which is confirmed by the slur in analogous bar 288. The slur of GE3 must be arbitrary, although it is possible to justify it as having been modelled after the authentic slur in the previous bar. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 304

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

No sign in FE (→EE1→EE2, →GE1→GE2)

Arpeggio in GE3 & EE3

[] suggested by the editors
..

Having marked arpeggio in analogous bar 287, Chopin probably considered it to be obvious in this place, hence in the main text we suggest adding a wavy line. A similar conclusion was reached by the revisers of GE3 and EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions