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. 315

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

2 staccato dots in A

Wedge in GE (→FE)

2 wedges in EE
..

In the main text we keep the two staccato dots visible in A over the f notes opening the semiquaver triplets. The fact that the first one was omitted in GE (→FE) most probably resulted from lack of space under the R.H. b semiquaver written on the bottom stave (in EE a wedge was added under this f). The second dot having been replaced by a wedge must have been an arbitrary decision of the engraver of GE1 – see bars 271-272.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges

b. 315

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Wedges to 2nd & 3rd octave in AsI

Dot & 2 wedges in A

Wedges to 1st & 3rd octave in GE1 (→GE2)

No marks in FE & EE

3 wedges in GE3
..

The three bass octaves are provided with staccato marks in A. Only the first one is a dot, which seems to be Chopin's inadvertence – it is supported by both the next two L.H. wedges and the R.H. wedges in these places. In this case, we consider the unification process carried out by GE to be justified and adopt it to the main text. The omission of the second mark in GE1 (→GE2) must have resulted from lack of space; the wedge was added in GE3. The easiest explanation for the fact that the versions of FE and EE are devoid of marks would be oversights.
The absence of the first staccato mark in AsI almost certainly resulted from an inaccurate nature of this working manuscript, in which performance indications appear only in some fragments (to a varying degree of intensity).

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 315

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In FE1 there is a  to the 3rd R.H. quaver, instead of a . The patent mistake was corrected in FE2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 315

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No sign in A (→GE) & FE

in EE

[] suggested by the editors
..

The missing  mark after  in bar 314 in A (→GE) and FE is probably Chopin's oversight related to the transition between the pages. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest adding the mark before the change in the figuration nature; such an addition was also introduced by EE. On the other hand, in spite of the change in texture, bars 316-318 are based on the same diminished four-note chord as bars 314-315, hence it seems possible to hold the pedal longer, at least until the middle of bar 316, which we suggest as an alternative solution in this bar. Generally, lonely  marks can often be found in Chopin's pieces, and sometimes it can be related to the difficulty in determining a precise moment the pedal should be released, particularly in similar situations to the one described here, cf., e.g. the Etude in D, Op. 25 No. 8, bars 19-20 and 27, the Prelude in C minor, Op. 45, bars 80-81 or the Waltz in C minor, Op. 64 No. 2, bars 15-16.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 316

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

..

In GE1 (→FE→EE) there is no cautionary  before G at the beginning of the bar, added in A later with a foreign hand. In the main text we include this sign, facilitating the interpretation.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts