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. 266

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Accent on 4th beat in A

No marks in GE (→FE,EE)

2 accents suggested by the editors
..

There is no reason why d1 on the 2nd beat of the bar should not be accented, as was the case with the analogous crotchets in the previous and next figures. Therefore, it is most probably Chopin's oversight in A. Admittedly, the accent is also absent in Af, but this is not an argument for intentional omission of the mark, since in this manuscript Chopin put accents only in the first three figures, in bars 263-264 (moreover, these three marks must be regarded as a pattern to be followed further on, which, paradoxically, is rather an argument for an accent). Due to the above, in the main text we add this accent. In the editions, the absence of an accent also on the 4th beat of the bar is almost certainly an oversight.
See also bar 268.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE

b. 266

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

accelerando in AsI

No indication in Af & A (→GE→FE,EE)
..

The term "accelerando" is used in #AI instead of dynamic indications. In the editors' opinion, this does not necessarily mean that Chopin did not anticipate dynamic nuances here when writing this score – see the note below. It can also be assumed that the lack of this instruction in the version prepared for publication does not mean giving up agogic freedom when playing this figure – the difference in markings is rather a result of the emphasis placed on a different aspect of execution. Therefore, we do not treat these indications as mutually exclusive.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 266

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The term legatiss. is not present in AsI, but in Af it is already marked on the 4th beat, between the staves. Chopin wrote leg[g]ierissi[mo] and leg there – the latter probably meaning legatiss. – which seem to have been replaced by probably later added dynamic cues, such as in A. The order in which the individual instructions were entered is not entirely certain, but leggieriss., which does not appear among the terms in the final version, has been clearly deleted.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

b. 266-267

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

As in analogous bars 109-116, the slurs over the octave sequences are certainly supposed to reach the final crotchets. It was generally precisely marked in the sources except a minor inaccuracy due to the transition to a new line – in A and FE there is no ending of the slur from bar 276 in bar 277. It was corrected both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation , Inaccuracies in A

b. 266

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Chord with a2 in A (→GE)

Octave in FE (→EE)
..

The absence of a2 in FE (→EE) probably resulted from the inaccurate [FC] notation – notes written down as dots, as it was performed by both Chopin and Fontana, were sometimes very poorly visible at the intersection of a stem and a ledger line. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Uncertain notes on ledger lines