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. 595

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

In GC there are no rests in LH, which was corrected in GE.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 595-596

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

Slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slurs in GE3
..

The overlapping slurs of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) may be interpreted literally; however, according to us, it is highly likely that Chopin wanted to have consecutive slurs like it was interpreted in GE3. See also the note to bars 597-599. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 596

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

No mark in EE

 in GC (literal reading)

Long accent in GC (contextual interpretation) & FE

 in GE
..

The meaning of the mark in GC in not obvious. At the first glance we have a full bar hairpin , which was interpreted as such by the engraver or revisor of GE and notated above the RH part as diminuendo must have seemed more reeasonable. However, the GC notation implies clearly that the mark does not apply solely to LH but the A1-A octave in particular, which also allows it to be seen as a long accent. FE confirms such interpretetation, where the ocatve is marked with a typical long accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , GE revisions

b. 596

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

..

In the main text, we add a cautionary ​​​​​​​ before c1. The accidental was added also in GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 596-599

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

2 slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

3 slurs in GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

It is difficult to determine to what extent the slurs of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) reproduce the notation of [A] – one can, e.g. imagine that the fact that the slurs coincide on the 1st octave in bar 598 could mean that Chopin wanted to merge them into one slur. What is more, it cannot be excluded that it was already the notation of [A] that contained certain inaccuracies, a vast number of which can be encountered in the preserved Chopinesque autographs, e.g. the missing slur in the ending of the phrase (bars 599-600) could have been related to the transition to a new line of text, which frequently resulted in overlooked endings of slurs. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest one slur over the entire phrase after the analogous place in exposition (bars 245-249). The solution given in GE3 reveals a routine approach, where it was whole-bar slurs that were considered most natural.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions