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. 262

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

No sign in FE (→GE,EE)

[] suggested by the editors
..

When interpreted literally, the authentic indications of dynamic nature do not create a coherent vision – the dolciss. indication appears in the middle of the bar after  in bars 260-261, without noticeable connection to melody, harmony or rhythm. Due to this reason, we suggest adding a ​​​​​​​ mark in the main text. However, it is only one of possible interpretations of the original notation – it cannot be excluded that dolciss. should start earlier, i.e. at the beginning of the bar or after the rest. Therefore, it would be an example of the use of the early convention of placing indications within their scope of validity (Chopin would apply it on a number of occasions, particularly in his earlier pieces).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Centrally placed marks

b. 262-263

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

No slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in GE3

Same slur suggested by the editors
..

It seems to be unlikely that Chopin could have imagined a different articulation of semiquavers than in the adjacent bars; therefore, we consider the missing slur to be an inaccuracy of notation, quite frequent in this Concerto, cf. e.g. 1st mov., bars 201-202.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 262

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

..

FE is lacking in a  lowering d​​​​​​​4 to d4. The inaccuracy, most probably repeated after [A], was corrected in the remaining editions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals

b. 262

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

There is no octave sign over the R.H. minim in A (→FE→EE1). The patent mistake (particularly after comparing it with b. 130) was corrected in FC (→GE), probably by Fontana's hand, as well as in EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors of A , Fontana's revisions , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 262

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

tempo di Polacca in GE1 & FE (→EE)

No indication in GE2
..

Omitting the second part of the tempo indication in GE2 could have seemed logical – Tempo I clearly defines the tempo of the returning main polonaise section of the piece. However, we must take into account the fact that at the beginning of the piece there are no indications concerning the tempo and nature of the composition, since it is obvious due to the title, i.e. Polonaise. In the discussed place, however, the title is not visible, which most probably prompted Chopin to specify the tempo.

The sources contain various forms of the conventional Tempo I indication, which we standardise:

  • GE1 – Tempo 1mo,
  • FE – Tempo 1o,
  • EE – Tempo Io,
  • GE2 – Tempo I.

We also correct the spelling mistake in the word "Pollacca" (double 'l') in FE. We reproduce the original versions in the graphic transcription (version "transcript"). See also General Editorial Principles, p. 9.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions