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. 636

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

..

A sharp raising c2 to c​​​​​​​2 appears in FE (→GE1→GE2,→EE1→EE2) only just before the 4th quaver of the bottom voice. Chopin would write an accidental too late on a few occasions (e.g. in the Etude in F Major, Op. 10 No. 8, bar 43). An accidental at the beginning of the bar was added in EE3 and GE3, yet it was only GE3 that removed the  in the middle of the bar, unnecessary in this situation.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals

b. 636-637

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

Slurs in FE (→EE)

Slurs in GE
..

The slurs of FE (→EE) are probably inaccurate, since it is difficult to find a reason that would justify their different range – cf. bars 621-629 and the remaining ones in this fragment. However, it has to be said that if it were not for the ratio of the number of one type of the slurs to the other, it would be the slurs of FE, encompassing the entire motifs, that could be considered to be more accurate. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 636

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A (→FE→EE)

No sign in FC (→GE)
..

In both manuscripts, this bar is a literal repetition of b. 185 (it is not written out in full), and like there, the oversight of a  sign in FC resulted in GE lacking it.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 637-642

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Three long accents in EE

Six accents in GC

Long accents in FE

Short accents in GE

Our suggestion
..

Just like in the previous three bars, in the main text we present long accents as the same can be found in EE and FE, while the GC notation is ambiguous (GE has short accents). Moreover, bars 634-642 have the same shape in every source. In GC the marks are notated above the LH octaves. It seems little probable this is not consistent with the autograph. However, in GE the accents are notated below the octaves, which makes us cautious when it comes to evaluate the remaining sources, where the accents are placed between the staves. No accents in bars 639, 641-642 in EE might have resulted from negligence.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 637-642

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Pedalling in EE

No markings in GC (→GE)

Pedalling in FE
..

In the main text we provide the FE pedalling, most probably the latest, and according to us more justified when it comes to dynamics (Chopin rarely marked changes in pedalling every strike of a note). Pedallling markings in GC (→GE) must have been overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of GC