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. 10-12

composition: Op. 25 No 11, Etude in A minor

No fingering in GC (→GE) & EE1

Fingering in bars 10-11 in FE

Fingering in bars 10-12 in EE2 (→EE3)
..

Four fingering numerals in FE is most probably a result of Chopin proofreading of this edition. The significantly more abundant fingering of EE2 (→EE3) develops Chopin indications adopted from FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 10

composition: Op. 25 No 10, Etude in B minor

E-e in GC (→GE)

F-f in FE & EE
..

The E-e octave at the end of the bar in GC (→GE) is almost certainly the copyist's mistake, who inaccurately repeated the previous bar. In the version of FE and EE, adopted in the main text, Chopin smoothly changed the interval between the parts of both hands from octave to sixth, as part of the D minor chord, being the base of the 2nd half of the bar. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of GC

b. 10-11

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

No tie in GC (→GE) & FE (→EE)

Tie suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we give a tie sustaining b2 on the basis of the most probably Chopin proofreading of FE4 in analogous bars 198-199. The situations, in which Chopin overlooks one of a few analogous places at the time of implementing corrections is not unusual – cf., e.g., the Etude in G major, Op. 10 No. 5, bar 4, Etude in B minor, Op. 25 No. 10, bar 87 or Waltz in A major, Op. 42, bar 81. An additional argument is the sustention of a2 in a musically and pianistically similar situation in bars 30-31.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 10-11

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

No slur in As, AI & FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2)

Slur from 2nd quaver in A

Slur from 1st quaver in GE2op (→GE3op) & GE2no2
..

The absence of slurs both in AI and in FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2) certainly does not express Chopin's intentions – in the manuscript the slurs were overlooked until bar 16, whereas FE lacks in them also in bar 12. In FE it is bars 138-139 that prove the accidental oversight, in which a slur compatible with A was most probably added by Chopin in the last stage of proofreading. The phrasing mark is also absent in As, in which, however, Chopin wrote two motivic slurs.
The slurs added in later GE, embracing two entire bars, are a result of revision and they were probably modelled on the authentic slurs in bars 26-29. See also the note on slurs in bars 12-13. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 10

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

c in As & AI

f in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

The version of AI, most probably written also in As, was then abandoned still before writing A. Among the hypothetical reasons of the change one can name:

  • avoiding oblique tones of c1-c and c-c2;
  • diversifying the harmonic progression – semi-tone transitions appear both two bars earlier and two bars later.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes