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. 336-351

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No markings in A (→FC→GE)

Staccato dot in FE (→EE)

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

We consider the missing slurs in b. 336, 344 & 351 to be an inaccuracy of notation. In analogous b. 438, 446 & 453 A features slurs in the first and third of them, whereas differentiating between the performance of such similar accompanying figures seems to be unjustified.

The staccato dot in b. 351 in FE (→EE) must be a mistake. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 336

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

We add a cautionary  before c1 in the main text. The accidental was also added in FESB.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: FE revisions

b. 337

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

In EE, GC and FE1 there is no  augmenting a2 to
a2. This obvious inaccuracy must have been already present in the autograph (such inaccurate notation is quite common in Chopin's autographs). The accidental was added in GE and FE2, which must have been done by the revisors. Compare b. 345.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 337

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

Fifth in A, GE2 & EE3

Only f in GE1 (→FE→EE1→EE2)
..

The omission of c1 in the 1st crotchet in the L.H. is most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE1→EE2). The mistake was noticed by the revisers of GE2 and EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 337-340

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

8– – ¬ to bar 340 in A (→GE1), contextual interpretation & in EE2

No 8– – ¬ in FE (→EE1), GE2 & EE3

8– – ¬ over octave in bar 337, suggested by the editors
..

According to us, Chopin did not want these bars to differ from analogous bars 13-16, although there is no corresponding version in any of the sources. The first cause of such a state of affairs was a possible mistake committed by Chopin in A – an unnecessary extension of the line determining the range of the octave sign beyond the 2nd crotchet in bar 337. However, the correction of this error in FE (→EE1) – elimination of the entire octave sign – also removed the characteristic leap to the f3-f4 octave, which, due to its important role in the entire 3rd mov. of the Concerto, could not possibly be intended by Chopin. Therefore, the version of FE is most probably not entirely correct. The situation is even more obscure due to minor, obvious mistakes, e.g. no ending of the octave sign in bar 340 in A (assuming its correctness) and embracing the 1st crotchet in bar 337 in GE1 with the octave sign. In later editions, one of the previous versions was introduced arbitrarily, which does not influence the determination of the text in any way.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE