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. 265

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

No marking in A

in GE (→FE→EE)
..

One could be looking for Chopin's proofreading in  appearing in the editions. However, according to us, a misunderstanding is more likely – the engraver may have introduced by mistake the marking from the previous bar, or, upon looking at the bottom of the page of ½A, he repeated  written under the double bass part in Morch.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 265-266

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

Accents in A & GE2

No marks in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

There are neither traces of removal nor reasons to remove the accents in the proofreading of GE1, hence their absence is most probably an oversight. The signs were restored in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 265-267

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

..

In FE, there are no accidentals before the 7th semiquaver in bars 265 and 267 and before the 8th semiquaver in bar 266. Chopin's oversight of the naturals restoring a1 is obvious both in bars 265 and 267 (A minor chord in the L.H.) and in bar 266 (correctly written, identical bar 264). In all remaining editions, some or all missing naturals were added:

  • GE1 (→GE2) added accidentals in bars 265 and 267,
  • EE1 added a  in bar 266,
  • EE2 (→EE3) and GE3 contain the correct text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions

b. 265

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

..

FE (→EE1) overlooked the ​​​​​​​ restoring e1. The accidental, most probably overlooked by Chopin, cf. bar 267, was added in GE and EE2 (→EE3). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in EE

b. 265-267

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

c1 repeated, f tied in A (→FC→GE)

c1 tied, f repeated in FE (→EE)

c1 & f tied in FESf
..

The version of FE (→EE) is almost certainly erroneous:

  • had Chopin wanted to sustain c1, he would have provided it with an accent, like in b. 285, 289, 387 & 391;
  • the repeated f note in b. 267 attenuates the syncopation value of the chord in the second bar of the phrase, clearly noticeable in all the remaining seven repetitions thereof. The tie was added in FESf.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Sign reversal , Partial corrections