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. 283-285

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

2  & long accent in A, literal reading

3  in GE

Short accent & 2  in FE

Long accent & 2  in EE

3 long accents suggested by the editors
..

As in bar 110, 112 and 114, the  marks written in A, the first two of which are longer than typical long accents, are to be uniformly interpreted as long accents. This is supported by the A notation in analogous bars 116-118, in which the marks are clearly long accents. The versions of the editions resulted from the overlapping of interpretation inaccuracies and the attempts to assign the marks to one of the two categories – short accent or diminuendo hairpin.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 283-286

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

3 slurs from quaver in A, contextual interpretation

2 slurs from quaver in GE1

3 slurs from minim in FE

3 slurs from minim after FE

2 slurs from minim in EE1

2 long, 1 short slur in EE2

1 long, 2 short slurs in GE2
..

The fact that the starting point of the slurs is consistently different suggests that Chopin wrote them independently first in A after [FC] had been finished and then in [FC] or FE1. In both places, in A in bars 285-286 and in FE in bars 283-284, the slurs do not reach the next bar. According to us, these are inaccuracies of notation, while in A it is so obvious that we provide a literal interpretation of this slur only in the graphic transcription. The missing slurs in GE1 in bars 283-284 and in EE1 in bars 285-286 are definitely of an accidental nature. The former was added by GE2, starting from the minim. The slur that was overlooked in EE1 was added by EE2 on the basis of GE1. In the main text we provide a contextual interpretation of the A slurs, consistent with the slurs in analogous bars 116-119. We consider the slurs based on the FE version, with the first slur having been extended, to be an acceptable variant.  

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE

b. 283-284

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

..

In the main text we omit the cautionary  to a1 in bar 283 (present in all sources), and we add it in bar 284. We also include the  to a3 at the end of bar 284 added in GE (→FE,EE,IE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 284

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

No sign in EE

 in GC (→GE) & FE
..

The asterisk  was omitted in EE, probably by oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies

b. 284-285

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

Missing from EE and FE is the bass clef restoring the bass register within the system after the treble clef on the lower stave (the last bar to which the treble clef applies is bar 283). However, the structure of the figuration in bar 286 and its graphic layout make the misreading of the text in this and the following bars practically impossible. In GC, bar 284 opens a new page and the bass clef is written there at the beginning of the line. In GE, the bass clef was added at the end of the line, in bar 284.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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