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. 277

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

Neither AsI nor A (→GE→FE1,EE,FESB) include an accidental to the 7th semiquaver. The F major chord underlying this place is, however, thanks to the C7 chords present directly both before and after it, temporarily the tonic, which requires the use of e2, and not e2. This conclusion is also supported by bar 285 – in the orchestral version of this phrase all sources contain e2(3). The mistake, patent in this context, was, however, corrected only in the stage of proofreading FE2, probably at Chopin's request.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 277-283

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

3 staccato dots in A

4 dots in GE

No marks in FE (→EE1)

2 dots in GE2
..

Unlike the first time (bars 110-116), in this case in A Chopin provided with staccato dots also the initial L.H. octaves in bar 279, 281 and 283. In this situation we consider the missing dot in bar 277 to be an oversight, and in the main text we provide dots in all four places. A similar addition was introduced already by GE. By contrast, in EE2, which repeated many marks overlooked in FE (→EE1) after GE1, only the dots in bar 277 and 279 were added. See also the note on the L.H. slurs.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 277

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Long accent in A & GE2

Long accent suggested by the editors

No mark in GE1

Short accent in FE

2 short accents in EE
..

In A the long accent is placed over the R.H. chord, which, however, certainly does not mean that it concerns the R.H. part only. Therefore, in the main text we move it between the staves, in accordance with the Chopinesque notation of analogous bar 110. The reviser of EE was most probably motivated by a similar idea when adding another accent under the L.H. part. The use of a short accent in FE (→EE) is an inaccuracy, frequent in Chopinesque editions. The absence of the mark in GE1 must be a mistake by the engraver, rectified in GE2 after A. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 277

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No sign in A (→GE)

in FE (→EE)
..

In addition to the accent over the R.H. chord – see the preceding note – FE (→EE) also includes a  hairpin. According to us, the presence of two marks may have resulted from a mistake or an attempt to remedy an inaccuracy, hence the authenticity of the mark in this form is questionable.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 278-279

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

New slur in EE and GC

One slur in FE and GE
..

Both versions of the slurring may be authentic, and the version of FE is probably later. However, the fact that GE - the source that was, after all, based on GC - has a continuous slur shows how easy it was for the engraver of FE to misread the manuscript. Bearing that in mind, we take the slurs of EE and GC as our main text. The practical difference in performance is very slight anyway. 

category imprint: Differences between sources