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. 322

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Slur from first quaver in A

Slur from beginning of bar in GE & FE (→EE)
..

In A the starting point of the slur encompassing the final passage is not clearly defined. The tip of the slur is between the 1st and the 2nd triplet quavers and is quite high above the notes (above the shorter slur of the separated voice), hence it cannot be said which quaver it concerns. These factors could have made the engraver of GE (who considered this version of notation inaccurate on a larger scale) lead this slur from the 1st note in the bar. The origin of the longer FE slur could be similar, yet other scenarios are likely as well – in this edition the second slur in this bar is missing, hence the copyist (or the engraver) could have assumed that the overlapping A slurs are an inaccurately written down extension to the slur. According to us, the A slur is supposed to run from the 1st triplet quaver assigned to both hands (e), from which the characteristic 6-note motif being the basis for the entire passage begins (cf. bars 188-195). We provide this interpretation of the A notation in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 323

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

..

FE overlooked the  raising a to a. The patent mistake was corrected in EE. The correct text is also in A (→GE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 323

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

..

The cautionary flat before b1 was added in the proofreading of FE (→EE) as well as in GE2. In the case of FE, one cannot exclude Chopin's intervention, although the revision of GE2 proves that such an addition could have also been performed by the reviser.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions

b. 323

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

b & b in FE (→GE1→GE2), contextual interpretation, & GE3

b & b in EE
..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the  raising the 2nd semiquaver to b is not cancelled, hence the 7th semiquaver should also be interpreted as b. It must be a mistake, corrected in EE and GE3. Although the reviser of GE3 corrected only the erroneously written note, adding a  before it, in EE, the  before the 2nd note was removed, which changed its pitch to b. This version, although possible both from the musical and pianistic point of view, is, however, certainly arbitrary – the traces visible in FE prove that the  was added only at the stage of proofreading, almost certainly at Chopin's request, who, in turn, did not participate in the proofreading process of EE. In the main text, we give the version of FE, corrected by Chopin, written correctly in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 323

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

..

In the main text, we omit the reminding  present in all sources before the 11th semiquaver in the L.H., c1. In turn, we add a cautionary  before the 2nd semiquaver in the R.H. (g1) and a before the 5th semiquaver b1. The first mark was added already in GE, together with a poorly justified  before the f2 crotchet. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals