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. 369

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

No marks in FE (→GE,EE)

Long accents suggested by the editors
..

The accents present in three similar bars – bars 361, 363 and 371 – make us consider the absence of respective marks in the discussed bar to be Chopin's oversight. At the same time, the presence of long accents in bars 368 and 371 suggests that Chopin could have envisioned long accents for the R.H. in the entire four-bar section (differently than in bars 360-363).

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 369-371

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

No markings in FE (→GE1→GE2)

​​​​​​​ in EE

  ​​​​ in GE3

[  ​​​​ ] suggested by the editors
..

An isolated  mark left at the beginning of bar 369 is almost certainly an oversight. Due to harmonic reasons, the pedal must be changed before bar 370, whereas performing any of the brilliant passages without pedal is inconceivable in this eventful fragment. Bar 360 opens a new page in FE, which favours such inaccuracies. Therefore, in the main text we add both a ​​​​​​​ mark at the end of bar 369 and a two-bar pedal in bars 370-371. The former was introduced already in EE, while GE3 introduced both.   

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 369

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

..

In FE, there are no naturals before f​​​​​​​1, d1 (twice) and d. The necessary accidentals were added in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions

b. 369-370

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

F1 tied in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

F1 repeated in GE3
..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the tie of F1 is present only in bar 169 (at the end of the line). EE corrected the patent defect, whereas GE3 completely omitted the tie, which is probably a mistake. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Uncertain slur continuation , Errors repeated in GE

b. 369-370

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Separate slurs in A (contextual interpretation→FC)

Continuous slur in A (possible interpretation→FE→EE) & GE
..

In A the slur at the end of b. 369 clearly suggests continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in b. 370, at the beginning of a new page. The notation of FC can also be regarded as misleading in that respect. A comparison with three analogous places, b. 268-269, 288-289 & 390-391, evidently supports inaccuracy of the slur in b. 369, pulled too far. Therefore, in the main text we give separated slurs, yet the version of the editions with a continuous slur may be considered an acceptable variant in this case.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation