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. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

in GE

No sign in FE (→EE)
..

The additional trill in GE is most probably a mistake by the engraver, who placed  a crotchet too early and either did not notice his mistake or forgot to remove the wrong mark. Anyways, the trill was absent in [A] – this bar was not written out in the manuscripts, but marked in an abridged manner as a repetition of b. 60, in which there is no trace of that trill. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence of Chopin proofreading GE1. Nevertheless, we have to admit that such a diversification of the last appearance of a repeated phrase would fit into the Chopinesque style.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 293-294

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur to end of bar 293 in GE

Slur to bar 294 in FE (→EE)
..

Like in b. 60-61, in the main text we give the shorter slur of GE; however, the version of FE (→EE) may be considered equal.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 293

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Arpeggio sign in A (→GE) & EE2

No sign in FE (→EE1)
..

The missing arpeggio is most probably an oversight by the copyist or by the engraver of FE1. The sign was added by EE2 after comparing it with GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 293

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No slur in A (literal reading) & FE (→EE1)

Slur in A (contextual interpretation→GE) & EE2
..

In A this bar ends a page and does not contain a slur. However, in the next bar Chopin wrote an ending of a slur reaching the 1st note and started a new one from the 2nd note. This undoubtedly proves that the absence of a slur in the discussed bar must be considered a mistake, hence in the main text we add the overlooked fragment of the slur, starting from the last minim, which seems most natural due to the change of register of the minim chord sequence. This is how this notation was interpreted in GE, while EE2 added the slur after GE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 293

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

Slur from F1 in A & EE

Slur from F in GE (→FE,IE)
..

The earlier starting point of the slur in GE (→FE,IE) is either a routine revision, adjusting a slur to a rhythmic group (in this case a bar), or an inaccuracy. The EE version could have resulted from a misinterpretation of the GE slur, and its compliance with the A notation is almost certainly accidental.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , EE inaccuracies