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. 325

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign

b. 325-326

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No slurs in GE1

2 slurs in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

The absence of slurs in GE1 must be the engraver's oversight (four similar slurs in b. 323-325 are present in GE1). The mistake was corrected in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 325

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

d3 in AsI

e3 in A (→GE→FE,EE), literal reading

e3 suggested by the editors
..

The pitch of the 2nd semiquaver in the 5th triplet is questionable – when interpreted literally, it is an e3; however, in all analogous places a respective note is placed a fifth (perfect) lower than the previous one, in this case e3, which suggests Chopin's possible mistake. In uneven triplets, the 2nd and 3rd semiquavers melodically combine with the next triplet, which Chopin carefully marked with R.H. slurs; however, this does not determine their harmonic affiliation. The latter is determined by the L.H. sequence (with different slurs!), consisting of D-T sequences filling two subsequent quavers, which, in turn, is clearly signalled by the bass voice beams. If we also take into account Chopin's tendency to forget about previous alterations (in this case it is really far – this is the only bar within bars 321-329 in which the 1st semiquaver is altered), an accidental oversight of a  restoring e3 seems very likely. Therefore, the absence of a  to the unquestionable e3 in the next triplet belongs to Chopin's typical inaccuracies – it is a note belonging to the current chord (A major) and was marked a semiquaver earlier in the L.H. part. Taking into consideration the above, in the main text we suggest adding accidentals so that the discussed fragment of the progression does not deviate from the binding scheme.

In AsI the 5th triplet in the bar is presented in the initial form (see also bar 328), in which the problematic note is absent. The introduction of a change in this place is an argument for Chopin's mistake in A, since corrections narrow down the attention field, which is conducive to errors.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors of A , Main-line changes

b. 326-327

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slurs in EE & GC (→GE)

Slur in FE
..  

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 326-334

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

No slurs in A (→GE1→FE)

Double slurs in EE

Slur in bar 327 in GE2

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we add slurs in the L.H. in bars 326-328 and 334 after the respective bars in the exposition. A simplified notation – slurs only in bars 325 and 333, most probably as a model for the next bars – is probably a result of Chopin's increasing haste at the time of writing A. In EE double slurs were added in these bars, same as in bars 325 and 333. In GE2 a slur was added only in bar 327 (and 335). 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions