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. 412

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

in A

in GE (→FE→EE)
..

In the main text we preserve the unambiguous notation of the rhythm of A. Moving a semiquaver outside the last quaver of the triplet in the bottom voice is an arbitrary action characteristic of GE (→FE→EE). The Breitkopf & Härtel publishing house would consistently apply a "mathematical" layout to such groups, denying the currency of the convention used by Chopin even in these places where the notation resulting from such a layout (as the discussed one) was absurd from the pianistic point of view, cf. the Nocturne in C minor, op. 27 no. 1, bars 5-13.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Dotted rhythms and triplets , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 412

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

Long accent in A

 in GE1

 in FE (→EE)

 in GE2
..

The Chopinesque long accent was interpreted in GE1 as a  hairpin, significantly increasing the range of the sign. In FE (→EE) the endings of the sign were related to the only notes in this bar, which extended it even more. The length of the sign in GE2, considered in relation to the quavers in the R.H., generally corresponds to the notation of A, yet the proportions with respect to the third in the L.H. differ – in GE2 the sign reaches beyond the half of the distance between them and can be associated with a diminuendo sign, much more than the sign in A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 412-413

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

Wedges in FE (→EE) & GE3

No marks in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The missing wedges in the R.H. at the beginning of these bars in GE1 (→GE2) are most probably an oversight of the engraver, although one cannot exclude that they could have been added in the last proofreading of FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 412-413

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

Slurs in FE (→EE)

Slur in GE

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

The moment of division of the slur in the L.H. in this bar raises doubts both due to the differences between particular editions and the differences between analogous bars, to an even greater extent. The version of GE, with one slur, which is not confirmed by any of the three analogous places (bars 413-414, 436-437 and 437-438), must be a mistake. According to us, the version of FE (→EE) is probably also inaccurate, since in bars 413-414 and 437-438, the further slur begins clearly earlier, i.e. from the penultimate semiquaver, whereas the coinciding slurs in bars 436-437 may be interpreted twofold.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 412

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

Slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Dots & slur in GE3
..

The staccato dots introduced in GE3 are a totally arbitrary revision; moreover, they were introduced in all analogous bars. In turn, the later beginning of the slur could have been modelled after the slur in bar 436.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions