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. 344-346

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

3  in FE (→GE,EE)

3 long accents suggested by the editors
..

The  hairpins can only denote long accents in this context. Chopin's original markings may have been more or less extended in FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 344

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Wedge in A (→FC,FE)

Dot in GE1 & EE

No mark in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The staccato mark in A, despite its smallness, is clearly prolonged (vertically). Both Fontana in FC and the engraver of FE regarded it as a wedge. GE1 and EE changed it to a dot, which can be considered acceptable, taking into account the fact that both passage E major sections feature only dots except for this place, including in analogous b. 438 & 446. GE2 (→GE3) did not include the mark, which could easily be considered an oversight if it were not for the dot in analogous  b. 446, which was also left out.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies , Wedges

b. 345

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

In EE, GC and FE there is no  raising a2 to a2. The accidental was added in GE, which must have been done by the reviser. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 345-347

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

EE and GC

FE1

GE1 (contextual interpretation) and FE2 & GE2
..

A correct text of LH in these three bars is a result of revisions in FE2 and GE2. An error in b. 345 (repetition of g-f seventh) must have already been present in the autograph, proven by the consistency of EE and GC. In FE1 the correct text of bars 346-347 was printed, by mistake we suppose, in bars 345-346, which resulted in a repetition of g2-f3 seventh in bars 346-347. To keep octaves between dyads in these bars an actave sign was added in b. 347 (Chopin may have done hastily upon correction). In GE1 the seventh in b. 345 was elevated to the right pitch but on the upper note instead of two sharps there is only one printed.

 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , FE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 345

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

b1 in A (→GE)

g1 in (→FE→EE)
..

According to us, due to the absence of traces of corrections performed in print, a possible Chopinesque proofreading of FE (→EE) is less likely than a mistake of the engraver in this case. Therefore, in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic version of A (→GE). However, from the musical point of view, the version with g1 is certainly not inferior to it.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE