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. 279-280

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV

No fingering in A (→GE→FE,IE)

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text, we do not include the inauthentic R.H. fingering added by EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 280-282

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

No sign in EE

 in GC (→GE) & FE
..

In EE,  the  mark was either omitted (see the note to bar 275), or misread as a L.H. slur. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE

b. 280

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

No sign in FEG (→GE)

 in EE

 in FE
..

In FE1 the  sign was placed after the 2nd crotchet, which may be a result of a misinterpretation of Chopin's notation by the engraver – cf. three preceding bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 280

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

No sign in A (→GE→FE→EE)

Arpeggio sign written into FED

Our variant suggestion
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 280

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

Slur to d1 in A

Slur to e1 in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The slur of A seems to be inaccurate – in this context it is difficult to assume that e1 were to be separated from the previous quavers (cf. analogous bar 132). Therefore, the version of GE may be a result of Chopin's proofreading.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE