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. 348

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

f1 in A (→GE)

f-f1 in FE (→EE)
..

The f note added in the proofreading of FE (→EE) is a change that certainly comes from Chopin. He also introduced a similar complement in the Concerto's 3rd mvt, bars 63-64.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 348

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

..

The indication Solo is present only in GE and EE; in both editions it was probably added by the revisers. The absence of the indication in FE suggests that in GE1 it was added in the last stage of proofreading.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 348-349

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A & GE2 (→GE3)

No sign in FC (→GE1) & FE (→EE)
..

The  hairpin, very clear in A, was overlooked both in FC (→GE1) and FE (→EE). Its absence in FC may be explained by a possibility that the mark was added in A later, yet its absence in FE must be an oversight. The hairpin was added in GE2 (→GE3) most probably by analogy with the remaining three similar places.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 348-349

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Tied third in A (→FE→EE) & GE

Repeated third in FC
..

The missing ties of the b-d1 third must be an oversight of the copyist, revised in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 348

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from f in A (→FE,FC→GE)

Slur from B in EE
..

The version of EE, which can be considered an interpretation – ignoring the musical sense – of the slur of A, written with panache, could have been repeated after FE, which, after all, was based on A. In the very FE the erroneous slur would have been corrected in the last phase of proofreading (although there are no visible traces of such a correction on the available photocopies of FE copies). In turn, the slur in GE1 – beginning from f in the previous bar – is completely erroneous. The engraver could have mistaken the bars, since they end with the same note (the mistake was corrected in subsequent GE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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