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. 2, Variations, complete

..

In AsI, Af and A (→GE1→EE1→EE2) there is no  lowering c2 to c2. Chopin's patent oversight was corrected by FE1, GE2 (→GE3,FESB) and EE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions

b. 265

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In the entire G major section of Variation V (bars 263-268), the pedalling markings are written in A rather carefully; however, it can be seen that more attention was paid to keeping the marks on the same level than to their correct alignment. In particular, the  marks in bar 265 are written before the bass D notes, as a result of which the preceding  marks had to be written sufficiently earlier. It did not lead to a significant inaccuracy at the end of bar 264; however, on the 2nd beat of bar 265, the  mark actually falls before the d-a-c1 quaver. Such an early pedal release could not have been intended by Chopin, since the  and  marks are written next to each other and almost certainly simply indicate a pedal change.
The notation of the editions is similar to the notation of A; however, it is less confusing due to different proportions of gaps between the notes and due to the size of the marks.
FESB overlooked the  sign on the 2nd beat.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in A , Errors in FESB

b. 265

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In A there are visible traces of corrections to the R.H. triplet. Chopin initially wrote it half a tone lower, as in three analogous bar 94, 98 and 261. A side effect of the correction could have been an oversight of the  restoring g2 in the 2nd half of the bar – in the initial version of this triplet the accidental was not necessary (see note next to this minim).

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A , Main-line changes

b. 265

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Long accent in A & GE2

No mark in FE (→EE) & GE1
..

The lack of accent in GE1 is an oversight by the engraver, corrected in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 265

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In A (→GE) there is no  restoring g2 in the middle of the bar. Chopin's patent oversight was corrected in FE (→EE), which could have been done by Chopin himself in [FC] or while proofreading FE1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE