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. 287

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

..

Same as in analogous bar 139, in A Chopin overlooked the  returning a1, which remained unnoticed in all editions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , Errors of A

b. 287

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

..

This time the  returning d2 overlooked by Chopin – as in analogous bar 139 – was added already in GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2).

 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE

b. 287

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

..

FE has an erroneous g as the last quaver in the L.H. In EE the mistake was corrected, most probably on the basis of comparison with analogous bar 139.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 287

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

 on 2nd quaver in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

 on 1st quaver in GE3
..

The  in FE (→EE) clearly applies to the 2nd quaver of the bar. In GE1 (→GE2), it was reproduced inaccurately, so in GE3, the indication was erroneously placed at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 287

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

No slur in FE (→GE,EE)

Slur suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the slurring of the sources, in which the legato articulation is marked in this and the next bar either explicitly, with a slur, or implicitly, with an additional quaver beam, does not have to be considered to be erroneous. However, it can be likely that the longer and complete slurs of analogous bars 303-304 express not a different but a later concept of Chopin. Due to this reason, in the discussed bar, we suggest an addition, whereas in bar 288, a modification of the slur, including this probably later slurring.

category imprint: Editorial revisions