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. 401

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

No c2 in chord in A (→GE)

c2 in chord in FE (→EE)
..

An additional c2 in the chord must be a mistake, since the note does not result from the link to the previous chord; it unnecessarily precedes the next, accented minim. We are most probably dealing with an unfinished proofreading of a major mistake – the traces of removing c3 visible in this place in FE may indicate that it was the 1st chord from the previous bar, c2-f2-c3, that was printed here in the first place. While proofreading this mistake, both missing notes were added (f1-a1), but it was only c3, going beyond the target chord, hence easier to remove, that was deleted.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 401-403

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

Ties to c2 in A & GE2

Tie & slur in GE1

Slur in bar 401-402 in FE1

Slurs in FE2

Double slur in bars 401-402 in EE1

3 slurs in EE2 (→EE3)
..

The ties of c2 were reproduced in the editions with errors (similarly as in analogous bars 57-59 and 397-399). In GE1 only the first of them was placed at the right pitch, whereas the second combined the e2 and f2 notes. The ties were further deformed in FE1 – the first one runs from e2 to a2, whereas the second one was omitted. In addition, FE (→EE) overlooked c2 at the beginning of bar 402. In FE2 a g1-a1 slur was added in bars 402-403, which can be seen as an inaccurately performed Chopinesque proofreading. The tie was not included in EE, which can mean that it was added in the last phase of proofreading. The versions of EE1 and EE2 (→EE3) are certainly a result of arbitrary revisions. In the main text we give the only undoubtedly authentic version of A, reproduced correctly only in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 401

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

f1 in FE (→GE,EE)

f1 in FEH, probable reading
..

The mark in the form of a diagonal cross written in FEH before the 1st grace note of the bar is probably a ​​​​​​​ raising f​​​​​​​1 to f​​​​​​​​​​​​​​1. At the same time, it cannot be excluded that, according to the intention of the writing person, it should apply both to this grace note and the first out of four small notes ending the trill. However, we have to point out that this mark may be simply one of the crosses with which Chopin would often mark the places discussed during a lesson.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 402

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

..

In FE, the group of eight notes is connected with a semiquaver beaming, which is most probably a mistake. An additional beam was added both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 402-403

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

8 staccato dots in FE

4 dots in GE

4 dots in bar 402 in EE
..

In both GE and EE, the lack of some of the L.H. staccato dots results most probably from inadvertence of the engravers. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE