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. 2, Variations, complete

Chord in AsI, FE & EE3

Supplemented FE version suggested by the editors

Chords & 'Violini' in Af

Chords &  in A

Solo part only in GE (→EE1→EE2, →FESB)
..

The versions of Af and A, identical in terms of the way they sound, differ only in additions – an indication specifying the instrumental group in Af and a  in A. As was the case with the previous such insert between bars 261-262, this replica was left out by GE (→FESB,EE1→EE2). In this case, however, it is difficult to indicate the probable cause of why this edition diverts from the basis. The fact that this insert was restored to FE in the initial version proves that Chopin hesitated whether to recall a chord being the basis of the first three beats of the bar at the expense of blurring the shape of the solo part.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Chopin's hesitations , Errors in GE , Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 262-263

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No markings under L.H. in Af & A
..

Wherever both hands move in parallel, Chopin very often considered markings written over the R.H. to be concerning both hands, particularly when both parts are written on one stave (cf., e.g. the Ballade in G minor, Op. 23, bars 1-5 and 251-256). Separate articulation markings for the L.H. in such contexts were one of the most frequently encountered editorial revisions. On the other hand, in the Variations Chopin himself wrote such markings a few times, e.g. at the beginning of Variation II (bars 135-137) and in the ending (bars 375-380). In this situation, being uncertain as to the authenticity of the dots and slur added in GE (→FE,EE), we do not include them in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 262

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

on 4th beat in A & FESB

on 3rd beat in GE (→FE1,EE)
..

According to us, the placement of the  indication is an example of Chopin using here a convention of writing indications within and not at the beginning of the scope of their validity. Due to the above, in the main text we give preference to the version of GE (→FE1,EE). The version of FESB resulted from the engraver's inaccuracy, and its compliance with A must be accidental, since throughout the entire piece, no features of FESB suggest that this publisher could have had an insight into A. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Centrally placed marks , Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 262-266

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Staccato dot in b. 266 in A (→GE)

No marks in FE (→EE)

Dots in b. 262 & 266 suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest adding a staccato dot in bar 262, as this is the only one among the four crotchets in analogous bars (bar 95, 99 and 266) that Chopin did not provide with a dot in A. In FE (→EE) dots are absent in all the above bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

b. 262-263

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

4 slurs, 2 notes each in A (→#Wn)

2 slurs, 4 notes each in FE (→EE)
..

The FE slurs may be authentic, although the random nature of this variant rules out a serious change of concept. Chopin could have added these two four-quaver slurs in a place in which the copyist or the engraver overlooked the actual shorter slurs. They indicate rather musical articulation (motifs) than a pianistic gesture, as the L.H. slurs written in A in bars 95-96 and 99-100.

category imprint: Differences between sources