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. 289

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4-note chords in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

5-, 4- & 3-note chords in FE1 (→FE2)
..

We include the changes, undoubtedly Chopinesque, introduced by FE1 (→FE2), in the main text as the latest authentic version. See also both notes in the next bar.

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

issues: Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 289-292

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

..

Chopin entered into A an unnecessary  to e2 in the 2nd L.H. chord in bar 289, and omitted this accidental to e in the R.H. in bar 292. Both defects were corrected in GE (→FE,EE,IE). Moreover, none of the sources include a  to e2 in the 2nd half of bar 290, which results from a different rule regarding the validity of accidentals in the presence of an octave sign.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Inaccuracies in A

b. 290

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

c2-f2 in A

f2 in GE (→FE→EE)

c2-f2 with  suggested by the editors
..

One can see a Chopin proofreading in the well-sounding version of GE (→FE→EE). However, an oversight of the engraver of GE1 also cannot be excluded; the engraver could have been influenced by the notation of the previous bar, including this type of coincidence of the voices at the beginning of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th group of semiquavers. Due to this reason, in the main text we give the version of A. However, the version of the editions, perhaps the latest authentic one, must be considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 290

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

Staccato dot in A, EE & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE)
..

The missing staccato dot over the bass E is certainly a result of an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→FE). The sign was added in EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with analogous bar 142, whereas in GE2 on the basis of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 290

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

Slur in A

Slur in GE (→FE→EE)

Slur suggested by the editors
..

According to us, while the slurs present in the sources are authentic, both the slur of A, not embracing the 2nd half of the bar, and the whole-bar slur of GE (→FE→EE), added perhaps by Chopin, can be, however, inaccurate. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a slur including the most certain elements of the source versions – the beginning of the slur in A and the ending in the editions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of GE