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. 267

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No mark in FE (→GE,EE1)

Staccato dot in EE2 (→EE3)
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 267-268

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

f1 & f tied in A (→FC→GE) & FESf

f1 repeated, f tied in FE

f1 tied, f repeated in EE
..

In FE b. 267 closes the line of the text. There are no ties of the R.H. minims, f-f1, therein, whereas in b. 268 it is only the tie of f that was finished. These are patent mistakes. EE ignored that partial tie while adding a tie of f1, probably on the basis of comparison with an analogous place in b. 271-272, where FE has only the tie of f1. All necessary ties in the discussed bars were added in FESf.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FESf

b. 267

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In FE, there is no  raising a to a, which is a patent mistake, corrected in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 267

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

in GE

cresc. - - continued in FE (→EE)
..

The absence of  in FE (→EE) could be explained by an oversight or by the fact that it was entered into [A] after [FC] had been finished. Anyways, it is highly unlikely that Chopin would have removed that indication on purpose, hence we give it in the main text. In turn, the status of the dashes marking the range of cresc. having been led to the end of the bar is unclear. It could be an inaccuracy of the copyist or of the engraver of FE; however, one could imagine a scenario in which they are an authentic alternative to  – if the proof copy of FE1 had not contained cresc. - - either, Chopin could have added it with such a range of dashes.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 267

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Rhythm in AsI

Rhythm in Af & A (→GE→FE,EE)

Our alternative suggestion

Another our suggestion
..

In the majority of the sources, the R.H. text on the 1st beat of the bar contains a rhythmic mistake. However, we give the text in this form, since it is impossible to say which elements are written incorrectly and therefore which rhythm Chopin meant. In the main text we give the version of AsI, since it is undoubtedly authentic, rhythmically correct and natural, both aesthetically and pianistically. However, as Chopin did not repeat the version of AsI, he could have wanted to change it then. The alternative versions are two possible reconstructions of a rhythm that could have been intended by Chopin.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE