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. 294-295

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

e1 tied in FE (→EE), contextual interpretation

e1 repeated in GE
..

In the main text, we correct the minor inaccuracy of the notation of the rhythm in FE (→EE). The missing dot prolonging the e1 quaver in bar 294 could have also contributed to the omission of the tie of that note in GE, although, according to us, it is more likely that the tie was added by Chopin in the last stage of proofreading of FE. The crossing-out of the e1 quaver at the beginning of bar 295 visible in FEH emphasises that the note should not be played again in this place. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Inaccuracies in FE , Rhythmic errors , Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections of FE , Annotations in FEH

b. 294

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

No teaching fingering

Fingering written into FEH
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 294

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

..

In the 1st half of the bar in FE, the secondary beam is erroneously placed between the 2nd and 3rd notes of the bottom voice.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No sign in A (→FE→EE) & GE1

 in FC, probable interpretation

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin entered by Chopin into FC (→GE). The exact range of the mark is questionable: it is written in b. 294, the last one in line, and clearly goes beyond the bar line; however, there is no continuation thereof in b. 295. We assume that it marks the same range as in analogous b. 375-376 & 396-397, in which the hairpins in FC were also added by Chopin. GE1 omitted the mark (the engraver could have been uncertain how to interpret the described notation), whereas GE2 (→GE3) provided the hairpin with a longer range, modelled after b. 273-274, which seems less justified, since:

  • the missing continuation of the mark in a new line suggests only a slight extension, and not a one-bar extension;
  • Chopin wrote a longer mark only one, whereas shorter – twice.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from c1 to a in A (→FE→EE)

No slur in FC & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur from c1 to b in GE1
..

According to us, the presence of an additional slur over the middle R.H. voice is related to the crossings-out visible in A related to the changes of layout: the voice was originally written on the bottom stave. The crossings-out separated the c1 minim from b, which probably prompted Chopin to enter a slur that would emphasise the course of the melodic line. This assumption is confirmed by the notation of the remaining three analogous places, which are devoid of both crossings-out and such a slur. It would be somewhat a special case of a mistake (unchecked effect) caused by a correction. Taking into account the above, in the main text we do not give that slur. It is also absent in FC: Fontana could have assumed that the slur, going through a crossed-out area, was also crossed out. Another possibility is that Chopin could have added it in A after having drawn up FC (it could also have been a common oversight). Anyway, Chopin did not add a slur upon seeing those bars in FC without one; however, he added a  hairpin. As he added a hairpin also in the three remaining analogous places, according to us, we can assume that it was that way of drawing attention to the sequence of the middle voice that he considered most proper and hence forwent additional slurs. The slur in GE1 is a result of a mistake: the engraver misinterpreted the tie of e1. See also the note on the curved lines in b. 295-297.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A