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. 283

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Sixth in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Fourth in GE3
..

It is difficult to determine what the motivation of the reviser of GE3 was when he was changing the 2nd quaver of the bar, since it is the 4th quaver that differs from the respective dyads in the analogous bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 283-284

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

When interpreted literally, the right-hand ending of the phrase mark does not go beyond b. 283, yet its shape clearly suggests that it should be led to the last note of the passage. This is how it was understood in the remaining sources, which, being both musically and pianistically natural, we adopt in the main text. The righteousness of this decision is confirmed by the phrase mark of A in analogous b. 385-386, which was extended and clearly led to c4.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 283

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

It is uncertain whether the two triplet slurs, added probably at the stage of proofreading of FE (→EE), were supposed to have any other meaning according to the person who was entering them (perhaps Chopin), e.g. motivic or concerning articulation. We do not include them in the main text and thus keep the notation of the corresponding bars (b. 50 and 283) in the first and final sections of the Polonaise coherent, as intended by the composer. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions

b. 283

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 on b2 in AsI & FE1 (→FE2)

No ornament in A (→GE→FESB,EE1→EE2)

 on a2 in EE3
..

In the main text we include the  added by Chopin in FE, hence in the last formation stage of the text of the Variations. Its presence also in the earliest of the preserved sources, AsI, suggests that Chopin hesitated; however, it is likely that the composer simply overlooked the mark in A. Probably on the basis of a comparison with FE2, the ornament was also added in EE3; however, it was placed inaccurately, as a result of which it seems to concern the 2nd semiquaver on the 2nd beat, a2, which is a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Chopin's hesitations , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 283

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur from g2 in A

Slur from f2 in GE (→FE,EE)
..

The slight change of range of the slur in GE (→FE,EE) could be considered an inaccuracy. According to us, a routine revision is, however, more likely, adjusting the range of the slur to beams or regular rhythmic structures, e.g. bars. In this case, the slur starts from the beginning of the bar, hence earlier than in A; by contrast, in bars 284-285 – also from the beginning of the bar, but later than in A. In the main text we give the slur of A, starting from the semiquaver, as in the analogous phrases in bars 275, 279 and 287.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions