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. 360-363

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

No fingering in A (→GE→FE,IE)

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text, we do not include the inauthentic L.H. fingering added by EE in bars 360 and 362-363.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 360

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

Slur from 2nd to 6th quaver in A, literal reading

Slur from 1st to 7th quaver in GE (→FE,EE,IE)

Slur from 2nd to 7th quaver, our alternative suggestion
..

The range of the slur A raises doubts. While the end of the slur can be safely regarded as imprecise, the moment of its beginning is not clear, if we take into account the notation of bars 10, 12 or 193. For this reason, we consider two possibilities probable, of which we propose a whole-bar slur for the main text, because the situation in neither this nor the following bars is fully analogous to the aforementioned bars of the main theme of the finale, and it is not certain whether Chopin wanted to suggest here the separation of the initial octave (cf. the similar-looking slur in bar 362, in which the texture does not suggest separation). This is also how it was reproduced in GE (→FE,EE,IE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 361-362

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

 in FE (→GE)

 & cresc. in EE
..

In EE, the characteristic Chopinesque  combination was separated; at the same time, the  mark was moved to bar 362.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 361

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

No mark in FE (→GE,EE)

Accent suggested by the editors
..

The missing third accent is almost certainly an oversight – cf. bars 363 and 371.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 361-369

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

Different rests in FE

Crotchet rests in GE

Quaver rests in EE
..

In bars 361 and 369, identical in terms of rhythm, the rests of FE are of different rhythmic value – there is a quaver rest in bar 361 and a crotchet one in bar 369. Both notations mean practically the same and both can be considered justified:

  • the quaver rest results in a formally correct, although slightly artificial two-part notation;
  • the crotchet rest provides for a less strict, yet more natural three-part notation.

It is difficult to determine whether it is a result of a mistake of the engraver or Chopin's hesitation. The notation was unified both in GE and EE, although differently in each edition. Each of those versions may correspond to Chopin's intention. However, since the performance manner is unquestionable, we preserve the differentiated notation of FE in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Chopin's hesitations , GE revisions