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

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

We add a cautionary  before f2 in the main text.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 311

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In A the  restoring e2 is missing, which is a patent mistake – cf. bars 278 and 286. The accidental is present in AsI; it was also added in GE1 and repeated in the remaining editions. In the main text we also add a cautionary  to e1.

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

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 311-315

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In bar 311, 313 and 315 Chopin overlooked in A some necessary accidentals in the final fragments of the R.H. passages, yet due to the fact that the entire fragment was written without an octave sign, the number of missing accidentals is lower than in the previous analogous passages – in bar 311 there are no naturals to the last two quavers; in bar 313 there are no sharps and naturals (5 accidentals in total) in the 2nd half of the bar; in bar 315 there is no  at the beginning of the 4th triplet. This version was repeated by FE1, while FE2 added all the necessary accidentals in bar 311 and 313. The versions of GE and EE are fully correct.
In the main text we omit the  to e2 in bar 315, unnecessarily repeated in the sources to the 9th quaver.

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

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions , Errors repeated in FE

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