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. 311-312

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In the 2nd half of bar 311 the L.H. part was corrected twice in A, which is evidenced by the visible deletions. Eventually, Chopin was forced to write the final version on the stave below. The initial entry was very carefully crossed out – first alone and then with the entire 2nd half of the bar – hence it is difficult to say what it was. In an analogous place in bar 313 a d1-e1-g1-b1 chord was deleted (a crotchet, without division into parts); perhaps this was also the case here (rather without a rest). Anyway, Chopin then wrote – still on the same stave – a version close to the final one, yet with 4 minims in the bottom voice, b-d1-e1-g1. The notation of this version was almost finished, with all necessary accidentals, a slur and the correct, five-note chord at the beginning of the next bar: .

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Accompaniment changes

b. 311-315

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Different L.H. accents &  in A

L.H. short accents &  in GE

Different R.H. accents & L.H.  in FE

Different R.H. accents & L.H.  in EE
..

In bar 311, 313 and 315 the A accents clearly differ in terms of their length and – despite certain inaccuracies – certainly concern the L.H. At the same time, the mark in the 2nd half of bar 311 reaches the quaver, hence, when interpreted literally, it looks like a  hairpin. It confused the engravers, who also reproduced the analogous marks in bar 313 and 315 in the same way. It is worth noting that the versions of A and FE are highly compliant, hence the difference in the position of the accents (short) at the beginning of these bars is particularly striking – contrary to the unambiguous A notation, they were assigned to the R.H., which suggests that [FC] was inaccurate in this respect. In EE it was also the second mark in bar 315 that was assigned to the R.H.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 312-315

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE

GC

FE

GE
..

The slurs in EE and GC (→GE) end in b. 314, and the slur in GE is placed below the chords (at the note heads). In the main text we present the slur found in FE as undoubtedly the correct one. Compare annotation in bars 296-306.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 312

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

No marking in EE

 in GC (→GE) & FE
..

No  marking in EE may be either an omission or echoes one of the earlier stages of the Scherzo notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in EE

b. 312

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

..

In A there are no flats lowering g3 to g3 and g1 to g1. This patent inaccuracy was corrected already in GE1 (→FE→EE, →GE2).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Inaccuracies in A