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. 296-297

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

..

In A there is no  to the 2nd quaver in bar 296. Chopin's typical inaccuracy was corrected in GE (→FE,EE,IE). Moreover, a cautionary  was added to B, the 5th quaver, which we include in the main text. On the other hand, we omit the unjustified  to A in bar 297, present in A (→GE→FE,IE).

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

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign , Inaccuracies in A

b. 296

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

Tie to f in A

Slur a-g in GE (→FE,EE1,IE)

Slur & tie in EE2
..

The version of the majority of the editions resulted from a misinterpretation of the tie to f as a slur referring to the R.H. top voice. The authentic tie was added in EE2, most probably by analogy with bar 308.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE

b. 297

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

f1 in EE, GC (→GE) & FE1

g1 in FE2
..

In FE2 the topmost note of the chord was arbitrarily changed from f1 to g1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions

b. 297

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

g in R.H. in EE & GC (→GE)

g in L.H. in FE
..

In FE, the note g is allocated to the L.H. It is hard to tell whether it reflects the notation of the hand-written base text for that edition or is a result of misunderstanding Chopin's notation by the engraver. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 297

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

Chord in A

No cue in GE & EE

F in FE, contextual interpretation
..

In GE1, the omission of the chord of strings (together with the following rest) written in A may be considered a mistake – as a result of corrections, Chopin moved the notation of the solo part to an adjacent stave, which could have misled the engraver. It is difficult to say why these elements were omitted also in GE2. In this place FE has an erroneous G crotchet (and a rest). It can be a misunderstood proofreading of Chopin, hence we adopt the F crotchet, being harmonically correct, as the text of FE. However, it is highly likely that it was the beginning of the next bar that was printed here. EE omitted the erroneous notation of FE.

Contrary to other minor replicas from the orchestral part of this type, the discussed chord, same as the crotchets in the next bar, are only an illustration of the harmonic sequence of the orchestral accompaniment and they are certainly not to be performed, even in the solo performance.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE