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. 664-665

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No indication in A (→FE→EE)

dolce in bar 664 in FC (→GE1)

dolce in bar 665 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

According to Chopin, these bars were supposed to be an exact repetition of b. 213-214. Therefore, in the main text we give the dolce indication in b. 664, in accordance with the Chopinesque entry in b. 213 in FC (→GE1). In subsequent GE the indication was arbitrarily moved to b. 665, probably by analogy with b. 81-82.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 664-665

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in FC (→GE1)

Shorter  in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the  mark entered by Chopin into FC (→GE1) in b. 213-214. In subsequent GE – like in analogous b. 81-82 and 213-214 – the mark was arbitrarily placed between  and dolce.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 665-666

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

Fingering written into FED

No teaching fingering
..

The fingering in FED quite significantly differs from the other entries in this copy in terms of size and font, so it seems that it could not have been written by Chopin or Miss O'Meara. In spite of that, the fingering is practically identical with the one that Chopin wrote above a similar sequence of chromatic fourths in the copy of the Grand Duo Concertant, Dbop. 29 belonging to Miss Forest.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 666-669

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No signs in A (→FE→EE)

  in FC (→GE1)

  in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we reproduce the   hairpins after FC (→GE1), into which they were entered by Chopin (in b. 215-218, see the note to b. 658-682). The changes in the range of the marks introduced in GE2 (→GE3) do not stem from Chopin's notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 667-670

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

g2 & fis2 notated in tremolando in FE (→GE,EE)

Earlier authentic notation without those notes
..

The notation of the sources in which the trill on f2(3) is doubled in the notation of the tremolando resulted from the addition of the same notation as in analogous bars 329-332 in the proofreading of FE. The change was most probably aimed at specifying the manner both elements of that figure are to be combined, particularly which note of the trill – upper or main – is to be played first. However, the final result of that proofreading was not fully controlled by Chopin, which is proven by a few manifest errors (see the adjacent note). It is also likely that Chopin was influenced by, e.g. the publisher, since in the Concerto in F Minor, written first yet published three years later (1st mov., bars 179-180 and 335-336), he preserved his original, ingenious and efficient notation. Due to the above reasons, in the main text we give the original notation, analogous to exposition.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE