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. 290

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur in GE, literal reading

Arpeggio sign in GE (contextual interpretation) & FE

No sign in EE
..

As was the case with analogous b. 31, the slur of GE, although formally correct, is most probably inaccurate and marks a grace note and an arpeggio (written down as a vertical slur), as was conveyed in FE. The absence of a slur (arpeggio) in EE, whatever the reason, cannot be authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 290

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

FE overlooked the dots prolonging the e-e1 octave. The mistake was corrected in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 290

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

a2-c3 third in AsI & A

Single notes in GE (→FESB,EE1→EE2)

3 thirds in FE & EE3
..

The initial version of AsI and A, with only one a2-c3 third, was additionally depleted by GE (→FESB,EE1→EE2), which did not notice the a2 crotchet at the beginning of bar 291 (it can be difficult to establish the presence of a middle note on ledger lines in Chopin's autographs, although in this case the a2 notehead is quite distinct). While proofreading FE1 (→FE2) Chopin added bottom thirds to the entire three-note motif, which was also taken into account by EE3.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain notes on ledger lines

b. 290

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Single L.H. notes & one-part notation of R.H. chord in AsI & A

Single L.H. notes & two-part notation of R.H. chord in GE (→EE,FESB)

L.H. octaves & R.H. sixth in FE1 (→FE2)
..

In GE (→EE,FESB) the R.H. part was retouched in the version of A – the chord and the sixth on the 2nd and 3rd beats of the bar were written down in two-part writing. It is uncertain whether it was an authentic change – it could have been introduced by the engraver or reviser in order to achieve homogeneous two-part writing.

However, much more serious changes – as was also the case with the previous bar – were introduced in the stage of proofreading FE1 (→FE2), which is proven by the visible traces of corrections, e.g. the outlines of the noteheads of the F and B quavers. At the same time, there is no doubt that they come from Chopin, hence we include them in the main text. In the changed version, an inaccuracy was committed – the f-f1 octave was mistakenly placed under the e2-c3 sixth, which can lead to a mistake in the interpretation of rhythm.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 290

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

The chord in the 2nd half of the bar initially contained b(2) instead of a(2), which can be seen under the deletion visible in A.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Accompaniment changes