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. 454-455

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

..

The third at the beginning of bar 454 and the chord at the beginning of bar 455 are written in A with two voices – both d3 are provided with separate stems pointing upwards. This detail was not reproduced in any of the editions, we omit it in our transcriptions, too. Chopin generally had a practical, pianistic approach and would separate the voices only when they moved in different rhythm – cf. the notation of all the remaining crotchets ending this kind of triplet sequences (bars 410-411, 413-415 and analog.); therefore, this strict, "score-like" notation applied in this place is rather an exception.

category imprint: Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 454-463

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

..

In the main text we add cautionary flats before b2 at the beginning of bars 454, 455 and 462. The signs were added also in EE3. In bar 463, being the last similar situation, a respective   was added by Chopin already in A (→GE→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 454

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

Inverted accent in FE, contextual interpretation

Accent in GE & EE
..

The fact that the accent in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) is placed between the notes of the f1-f​​​​​​​2 octave is almost certainly a consequence of the first group of semiquavers in the L.H. having been written on the top stave (in GE3, the mark was placed between the staves). Therefore, in the main text we place the accent under the octave, just like in the previous bar. The reversed mark most probably stems from a mistake of the engraver of FE; it was recognised as a mistake already in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 454

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

Octave in FE (→EE)

Only f2 in GE
..

Nothing proves the authenticity of the version of GE – cf. analogous bar 450. Actually, it cannot be excluded that the stem combining both notes of the octave in the R.H. was added in FE in the last phase of proofreading – it was most probably engraved independently from the stem of f​​​​​​​2, pointing upwards.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 454-455

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

No slur in FE (→GE)

Slur from 2nd beat in EE

Slur from 1st beat suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest adding a slur after the previous, analogous figure. The absence of the slur could have been influenced by the layout of the majority of the sources, in which the first group of semiquavers in the L.H. is written on the top stave. The slur was added already in EE, but only just from the 2nd beat of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions