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. 297

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Wedges in AsI & GE (→FE,EE)

Staccato dots in A
..

In the main text, we provide staccato dots inscribed in A. The wedges pencilled into #ApI are the first attempt at articulation marks here. On the other hand, the version of the editions must be the aftermath of the unjustified conviction of the engraver of GE1 that all staccato marks in the finale of the Variations are wedges.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

b. 297

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In the main text we omit the  to e1 in the 3rd semiquaver triplet, unnecessarily repeated in the sources. In A one can see that initially there was also a  in the 5th triplet, from which, however, it was removed. By contrast, we leave the reminder  to d2 in the 4th triplet, since d3, occurring a moment later, may raise doubts as to the sound of this note.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Cautionary accidentals

b. 297

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No accents in AsI & FESB

Short accents in A (→GE→FE)

Vertical accents in EE
..

The lack of accents in AsI results from the working nature of this score. In FESB, they were probably overlooked.
Arbitrary changes of the font of accents are a characteristic feature of EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 297

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

Short accent in A (→GE→EE,IE)

No mark in FE

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

In A the accent is shorter than the similar marks in analogous bar 293, 305 and even 309. However, if we take into account the similarity of the rhythmic and harmonic context, this comparison proves that it is also in the discussed bar that Chopin almost certainly meant a long accent.
The missing mark in FE is most probably due to the engraver's oversight.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE

b. 298

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

..

There is an erroneous  before the 1st semiquaver in the L.H. in the 2nd half of the bar in FE1. The mistake was corrected already in FE2. It is probably a revision, although Chopin's participation cannot be excluded. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE