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. 394-396

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

..

In GE3, the repeated chords in bars 394 and 396 were written in an abbreviated form, i.e. as minims with quaver tremolos.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 394-410

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

..

category imprint:

b. 394-395

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

No slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

4 slurs in GE3
..

The complete absence of slurs in these bars must be an oversight. In spite of that, slurs were added only in GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 394

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

3 crotchets in A (→FC→GE)

Dotted rhythm & crotchet in FE

Crotchet & dotted rhythm in EE & FESf
..

The origin of the version of FE is unclear. It may be Chopin's proofreading; it would be then the latest authentic version. On the other hand, one cannot exclude a mistake of the engraver: looking at the already finished, correctly engraved version of FE, the engraver could have mistakenly associated the dot prolonging the f1 minim with the e1 crotchet and could have added the allegedly missing quaver flag to the next note. The second possibility is supported by the fact that the notation of FE is not entirely correct, since extending dots should be both next to e1 and f1. One can assume that Chopin would have bothered to add the second dot if he had prolonged the 1st crotchet. In this situation we consider the version of FE only a variant of uncertain authenticity while saving the main text for the undoubtedly Chopinesque version of A. The version of FE was regarded as erroneous already in EE, in which, however, not knowing the authentic version, the rhythm of the three previous analogous bars was introduced (369, 373 and 390). The same correction was entered into FESf, which could have also been performed by analogy and which does not influence the evaluation of a possible authenticity of that version.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 395-398

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

Slur in A

Slur suggested by the editors

Slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)

Our alternative suggestion
..

According to us, the slur of A ending in bar 396 is inaccurate – see bars 52-53 – hence in the main text we lead it to the beginning of the next bar, in accordance with the slurs of flute I and clarinet in Morch. The authenticity of the slur added in GE (→FE→EE) in bars 397-398 is also questionable – its beginning is contrary to the phrasing that naturally follows from the instrumentation. Therefore, we do not include this slur in the main text. However, taking into account a possibility of a Chopinesque proofreading of GE1 in this place, we suggest a slur started a crotchet later as an alternative solution – the Chopinesque entry could have been misinterpreted by the engraver.
The delayed beginning of the first slur is most probably an inaccuracy of FE (→EE). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE