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. 593

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

Minim in FE (→GE)

Dotted minim in EE

Quaver & minim suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we specify the Chopinesque notation of the sustained d bass note. Chopin used this kind of simplified notation of sustained notes a few times (e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 2nd mov., b​​​​​​​ar 15), yet in this case a strict notation does not excessively complicate the notation (a similar notation is to be found, e.g. in the Fantaisie in F Minor, Op. 49, bar 43 and subsequent). The notation introduced in EE, although still vague, may be, however, considered to be more precise than the original one, particularly if we take into account the fact that originally a dot did not precisely determine the rhythmic value a note should be prolonged with. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 593

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

​​​​​​​in FE (→GE1→GE2)

in EE

in GE3

 [] suggested by the editors
..

In this context, the missing  mark must be considered an inaccuracy – the fact of writing down a hold of the bass note with hand is most probably aimed at enabling clear pedalling, compliant with harmonic changes. The mark was added already in EE. It is present also in GE3, in the place we suggest in the main text. However, GE3 also arbitrarily moved the ​​​​​​​ mark.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 593

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

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 594-595

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

L.H. long accents in EE

R.H. short accents in GC

L.H. short accents in FE

R.H. different accents in GE

Our suggestion
..

Accents in these bars differ in length and placement. EE has two long accents, FE - two short ones. We believe that the marks in GC do not differ in size from those of the same kind in the previous bars, and so we present them as short ones. In GE an accent in b. 594 is slightly longer than the following. Both marks in GC are notated closer to the RH part, which was recreated in the same way in GE. In the remaining editions they are placed on the LH fifths. The missing autograph prevents the right assessement, and so we propose a compromise not to impose either way of interpretation of the accents.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 594

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

..

The traces of proofreading prove that in FE the originally printed 5th quaver was a d1.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE