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. 376-377

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

Slurs in A (literal interpretation→GE1)

Slurs in A (possible interpretation) & FE (→EE)

Slur in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2
..

Bar 376 is the last one on the page in A, which provoked an uncertainty concerning the issue of slurring – the slur in this bar clearly points to continuation, yet in bar 377 a new slur begins. The easiest interpretation of this notation is the version of GE1; however, the version of FE and one slur of GE2 can be considered to be justified. In the main text we suggest the version of GE2, due to the analogy with bars 32-33.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 376-377

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

Slur in GE1 (→FE)

Completed slur in GE1 (possible interpretation of A)

Slurs in EE (possible interpretation of A)

Slur in GE2 (possible interpretation of A)

No slurs (possible interpretation of A)
..

In A, the quavers in bar 376, the last on this page, are encompassed with a slur, which clearly points to continuation, yet in bar 377 there is no ending of this slur. Chopin did not write any slurs in the L.H. until the end of this Solo, hence it seems that he renounced the slurring in the L.H. in this fragment, considering the slurs in the R.H. to be enough. Due to this reason, in the main text we omit the described fragment of the slur. It may be possible that the absence of continuation of the slurring is only a result of haste, particularly since in analogous bars 32-33 the slurs in A are written in the parts of both hands. Therefore, the slur of GE1, completed after the R.H., and the slurs of EE and GE2 can be considered to be compliant with Chopin's intention.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 376

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

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

The two fingering digits in FEH could have been written by Chopin, hence we include them in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 376-377

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the only cautionary accidental in these bars is a  before b, the last quaver in bar 377. In EE, GE3 and FEH, a  was added before d1, and we also add a  before c1 in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Annotations in FEH

b. 376

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Dotted minim g in A (→FE→EE) & GE1

Minim g in FC & GE2 (→GE3)
..

The dotted g minim is the original version, left in A most probably by inadvertence. It is indicated by corrections in two previous analogous places (b. 274 and 295). Chopin's distraction in this place, as well as in the entire second appearance of this section, is proven by a few evident inaccuracies, e.g. the overlooked ties of g-e1 in b. 375-376 and f-f1 in b. 392-393. The versions of FC and GE1 are probably erroneous: the copyist was copying A with a dotted minim, of which the engraver of GE1 could not have been aware. The omission of the dot in GE2 (→GE3) is probably a revision unifying that bar with the three remaining analogous places. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Errors of FC