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. 572-573

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

No tie in EE

Tied g in GC (→GE) & FE
..

In EE g is not tied, which most probably results from omission. In GC there is no appropriatew tie in b. 572 (at the end of ther system), which was corrected in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 572

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

No slur in FE (→GE,EE)

Slur suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest adding a slur combining the upbeat with the beginning of the next bar – the musical connection of that quaver with the next phrase is unquestionable, yet the a tempo indication appearing only just in bar 573 may distort the correct phrasing if interpreted literally. Both the missing slur and placement of a tempo may actually be a random inaccuracy related to the transition to a new page in FE. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 572

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

No  ​​​​​​​in FE

​​​​​​​ in GE

​​​​​​​ in EE

[​​​​​​​] suggested by the editors
..

The  mark, overlooked in FE, was added in the remaining editions, although its absence does not have to be considered a mistake – cf. e.g. the Waltz in C​​​​​​​ Minor, Op. 64 No. 2, bar 15. In the main text, we suggest adding the mark in accordance with the possible phrasing, hence before the last quaver, which already begins the next musical thought.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 572-579

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No slurs under L.H. in A (→FC,FE)

Six-note slurs in GE1 & EE

Five-note slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In b. 572-573, 574-575 and 578-579 the separate L.H. slurs are an arbitrary addition of the engravers (revisers) of GE and EE. In such a layout, when the parts of both hands are written on the bottom stave, slurs over notes refer to both parts, so there is no need to double them. The five-note slurs in GE2 (→GE3) stem from the R.H. slurs (over notes), which were changed in the same way.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 573-584

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE

Slurs in GC, contextual interpretation

Literal reading of slurs in GC (→GE)

No slurs in FE
..

The FE - without slurs - most probably goes back to the original phrasing of these bars. The EE with a slur in bars 581-584 must be Chopin's annotations of the original. In the main text we use undoubtedly the authentic and most precise slurring of GC. The slurs over the new line break (bars 580-581) in GC, when read literally, suggest continuation. Such was the reading of GE, however, we believe Chopin to have meant a new slur from b. 581, just like in EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GC , Authentic corrections in GC