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. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

..

The  indication is certainly a result of a mistake of the engraver of GE1 – see the next note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 283-284

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

Slur in A (possible reading) & GE2

Slur in A (contextual interpretation→GE1→FE→EE)
..

Same as in bars 135-136, the placement and range of the slur of A are unclear – it can refer both to the quavers in the top voice and to the crotchet of the bottom one.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 283

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

Accent under R.H. in A

Accent over L.H. in GE (→FE→EE)
..

Contrary to the clear notation of A, in the editions the accent was assigned to the L.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 283

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

c1 in A & GE2

No c1 in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The version of GE1 (→FE→EE) is a result of Chopin's proofreading, which is proved by the traces of deletion of c1 on the 5th quaver in the bottom voice. However, a more detailed analysis of traces of corrections in print proves that it was also g2 that was being removed there. It means that Chopin most probably did not proofread the text of A, which was fine, but the false c1-a1-c2-g2 chord: . Concentrated on correcting the sound in the place of mistake, it is possible that the composer did not thoroughly check the context and resolved the e1-d2 seventh to the a1-c2 third, particularly since a similar shape of accompaniment appears three bars later in bar 286, very similar in terms of harmony. Moreover, taking into account the possibility of an accidental removal of the correct c1 note as a result of a misunderstanding at the time of implementing the proofreading, in the main text we give the version of A. The proofread version of GE1 can be considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 283-286

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

No L.H. slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slurs in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

In such a quasi-parallel figuration, the slurs in the R.H. generally apply also to the L.H., particularly when both parts are written, partially or completely, on one stave. Therefore, the source notation without separate slurs for the L.H. may be considered to be complete. However, at the repetition of this fragment (bars 299-302), Chopin provided with slurs also the L.H., which, according to us, indicates rather the need to specify the notation than to differentiate between the markings of both four-bar fragments. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest adding slurs of the L.H. Slurs were introduced already in GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions