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. 252-253

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

 &  in A

 &  in FE

 in GE

2  & 2  in EE
..

The deletions visible in A reveal that Chopin considered the dynamic markings over the R.H. part not suggestive enough and moved them lower, between the parts of both hands. None of the sources reproduced this notation accurately – in FE (→GE) the marks were placed too low, before the L.H. part, while GE overlooked . The revision of EE is noteworthy, i.e. the R.H. chords were moved to the top stave (which we do not include in our transcriptions), and each hand was provided with its own dynamic markings.
See also b. 256.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Deletions in A

b. 252-253

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

L.H.  in A

No signs in FE (→EE) & GE
..

The additional  for the L.H. was most probably added – as many other dynamic marks – to A after [FC] had been finished. This would explain its absence in FE (→EE), yet it remains uncertain whether in GE it was overlooked or considered superfluous in the face of similar marks between the staves.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 252

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

in A (→GE) & EE2

No indication in FE (→EE1)
..

The missing  in FE (→EE1) most probably means that Chopin added it to A after the basis for FE had been finished, that is [FC]. However, in the case of a single mark, an oversight cannot be ruled out either. In EE2 the mark was certainly added after comparing it with GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 252

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV

Chords without b in A

Chords with b in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

Sonically and pianistically speaking, both versions are equal. Therefore, at first glance, it is not obvious why Chopin should have abandoned the idea of repeating the chord unchanged, as it is in all analogous places (the omission of the bottom note at the end of bar 248 results from the high position of the L.H. figuration). On the other hand, the A version is not a mistake that occurred at the stage of writing this manuscript – all chords in this bar were planned in this form by the writing person, which is evidenced by the difference in the level at which the ledger lines are placed – in the chords without b, they are placed lower than in the previous ones, hence there is no space for writing this note. However, this fact does not completely rule out Chopin's possible mistake, as it could have happened earlier, in the draft autograph (lost), e.g. while introducing possible corrections. In the main text we keep the A version, as Chopin could have wanted to refer to the chord between bars 149-150. The version of the editions, which does not differ from the remaining analogous fragments in terms of regularity, can be considered an acceptable variant. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 252-253

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV

Slur to 4th quaver in A, literal reading

Slur to a3 in GE (→FE,EE,IE)

Slur to b. 253, our suggestion
..

The A slur must be inaccurate, as it only reaches f3 – cf. the endings of the analogous slurs in bars 244-245 and 248-249. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a slur to g3 in bar 253, modelled after those slurs. In GE (→FE,EE,IE) the slur was routinely revised by extending it to the end of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions