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. 435-436

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

..

In A, Chopin wrote the final section of figuration in this phrase (from e2), as if he thought the majority of the previously introduced accidentals to be still valid – he put flats only before the 3rd and 7th quavers in bar 436. In the latter, signs were added in GE (→FE→EE), yet the  at the end of the previous bar – only in EE. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 435

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

 in A (→GE→FE)

  in EE

Our variant suggestion
..

The pedalling of A (→GE→FE) is questionable in this bar. Initially, both this and the next bar had a whole-bar pedalling. Chopin then crossed out both signs in bar 436 and a  in the discussed bar 435. It is difficult to guess what a sole  mark left in this bar could mean in this context, hence it seems that Chopin committed a mistake: he either forgot to cross out the  mark or he unnecessarily crossed out the  mark. According to us, the latter option seems to be more plausible; therefore, in the main text we give a completed pedalling, written in brackets to signalise that its status is not entirely certain. EE added a  in accordance with the harmonic sense. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , No pedal release mark , Inaccuracies in A

b. 435-436

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

f1 in chord in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No f1 in chord in GE3
..

The prolongation of f​​​​​​​ at the transition between the bars introduced in GE3 could have been aimed at avoiding repetition of that note, which makes this place similar to analogous bars 411-412. In turn, it is difficult to understand the motivation of the reviser of that edition at the time of removing the top f1 from the chord at the beginning of bar 436. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 435

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

Slur to d1 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur to f in GE3
..

The ending of the slur is unclear in the majority of the editions – the slur does not go beyond d1,  yet the last semiquaver, f, placed on the bottom stave, is actually under that note, so that one can assume that it is also encompassed with the slur. Such an interpretation was written in an unequivocal manner in GE3. In fact, both notations define the same performance, since d​​​​​​​1, being a quaver, cannot be separated from the next semiquaver. In this situation, it seems to be most natural to lead the slur to the end of the passage; this is the version we adopt to the main text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 435

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

e2 in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE1)

e2 in EE2 (→EE3)
..

The version of EE2 (→EE3) is an arbitrary revision, perhaps aimed at avoiding a flagrant (?) succession and harmony of a minor ninth, d1-e2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions