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. 359

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No signs in sources

3  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest  hairpins under the L.H. motifs after three previous analogous bars 341, 345 and 355. Crescendos in such figures are one of the elements defining the shape of a motif, hence the absence of marks must be considered Chopin's oversight.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 359-360

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV

..

In A there is no  to the 4th quaver in bar 359 (b2). It was added in GE (→FE,EE,IE). The cautionary  to b2 at the beginning of bar 360 is missing too (Chopin wrote a respective accidental to the 2nd L.H. quaver). This accidental was added only in EE2. In the main text we include both. On the other hand, we omit – as it was done in GE (→FE,EE,IE) – the  to c3, the 6th quaver in bar 360, unnecessarily repeated in A.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Inaccuracies in A

b. 360-364

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

No marks in EE

Accents in GC (→GE) & FE
..

A poorer version of EE - without accents in bars 360, 362 and 364 - seems original.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 360

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

Long accent in A (→GE1→FE)
..

The only long accent in this fragment correctly reproduced in GE1 (→FE) was changed to a short one in EE and GE2. The very idea of unifying the notation of accents in all analogous bars is accurate – all signs in A are the same – yet the accents in A are clearly long, which the reviser of EE could not know, whereas the reviser of GE2 did not consider it to be significant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 360

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

New slur in FE (literal reading→EE)

2 slurs in FE, contextual interpretation

Continued slur in GE
..

In FE, the slur begins on the first note, despite the fact that in the previous bar, ending the previous page, there is a slur started on the last quaver. Since the correctness of that slur does not raise doubts – after 7 quavers marked staccato, the last one was provided with a slur and not a dot – we assume that it is the beginning of the bar under discussion that is inaccurate. Taking into account that overlapping slurs occur quite frequently in the Rondo, e.g. in a similar situation in bars 219-220, we adopt such a solution as the text of FE. The amendment in GE may be regarded as an alternative version. The version in EE, which considered the slur in bar 359 to be erroneous and omitted it, is almost certainly arbitrary. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions