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. 293

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

..

When interpreted literally, the slur of A runs from the 3rd to the 14th demisemiquaver. The patent inaccuracy did not mislead the engraver of GE (→FE→EE), who embraced the whole group with the slur.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 293-294

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

Shorter slurs in A (literal reading→GE1→FE)

Longer slurs in A (contextual interpretation)

Shorter slurs in both hands in EE

Longer slurs in both hands in GE2
..

The range of both slurs is vague in A – the first does not exceed the bar line, whereas in the second one, one can see a slur over the triplet. This is how they were interpreted in GE1 (→FE→EE). However, the slurs in subsequent, identical figures, extended in a few places, prove that Chopin wanted them to reach a crotchet on the 1st or the 3rd beat of bar 294 and analog. each time. We give this interpretation, introduced already in GE2, in the main text. The slurs in the L.H. added in EE and GE2 are an arbitrary revision both in these bars and in the entire section until bar 308 – see the note on bars 297-298.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 293-295

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

Shorter  in A

Different  in GE1 (→FE)

Longer  in EE & GE2
..

We give the  hairpin in the main text on the basis of A. It is the only version whose authenticity does not raise any doubts. The musically sensible version of GE1 (→FE) may be considered an equal variant; however, it may be a result of the engraver's inaccuracy. In the version of EE and GE2 one can see an arbitrary attempt to unify the notation of GE1 (→FE) or another inaccuracy.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 293-299

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

No marks in A (→GE1→FE→EE)

Accents on c in GE2
..

In GE2 accents in the L.H. were added at the beginning of bars 293, 295, 297 and 299. It is a part of a more extensive revision, in which all articulation markings of the R.H. (dots and slurs) were repeated in the L.H. part.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 293-297

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

Slurs under triplets in A

No lower slurs in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The slur visible in A under the quaver triplet in bars 293 and 297 was most probably overlooked both in GE1 and in GE2 (it is understandable in bar 293, in which the slur blends into the  sign). We do not convey these slurs in the main text, since they seem to be triplet slurs, which we generally do not include (General Editorial Principles, p. 16), and which could have been left in A by accident. However, it is not a typical situation, hence it cannot be excluded that Chopin indeed envisaged double slurs in this place.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Triplet slurs