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. 345-347

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

EE and GC

FE1

GE1 (contextual interpretation) and FE2 & GE2
..

A correct text of LH in these three bars is a result of revisions in FE2 and GE2. An error in b. 345 (repetition of g-f seventh) must have already been present in the autograph, proven by the consistency of EE and GC. In FE1 the correct text of bars 346-347 was printed, by mistake we suppose, in bars 345-346, which resulted in a repetition of g2-f3 seventh in bars 346-347. To keep octaves between dyads in these bars an actave sign was added in b. 347 (Chopin may have done hastily upon correction). In GE1 the seventh in b. 345 was elevated to the right pitch but on the upper note instead of two sharps there is only one printed.

 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , FE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 345

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

b1 in A (→GE)

g1 in (→FE→EE)
..

According to us, due to the absence of traces of corrections performed in print, a possible Chopinesque proofreading of FE (→EE) is less likely than a mistake of the engraver in this case. Therefore, in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic version of A (→GE). However, from the musical point of view, the version with g1 is certainly not inferior to it.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 345

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

Long accent in A & GE2

No mark in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The accent, most probably overlooked in GE1 (→FE→EE), was restored in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 345

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

in A (→GE)

No marking in FE (→EE)
..

The absence of  in FE (→EE) is certainly a mistake of the engraver – cf. bars 4-6.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 345

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

Slurs in A, contextual interpretation

Slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In A the slur under the motif in the R.H. ends on a, whereas the corresponding slur in the L.H. – on B. A comparison with the slurs in the next bar allows to consider the first of them to be inaccurate. The slurs in GE can be a result of Chopin's proofreading, since leading the slurs to the end of the motifs is more natural here – cf. the authentic slurs e.g. in bars 4-6. In turn, an earlier beginning of the slurs in FE (→EE), being contrary to the structure of the motifs, cannot come from Chopin and is probably a result of an erroneous interpretation of the slurs of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of GE