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. 567

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

3rd finger in FE (→GE,EE)

2nd finger as our alternative suggestion
..

According to us, the first of the Chopinesque fingering digits given in FE (→GE,EE) may be erroneous. In such passages, different sounds are generally played with different fingers, which together create a specific arrangement for a given passage, repeated in the next octaves (cf. bar 569). Therefore, it is generally enough to give fingering of the first figure as Chopin did, e.g. in the Etude in C Major, Op. 10 No. 1. Performing both g and a with the 3rd finger breaches this rule and impedes performance, not offering anything in exchange. However, if we perform g with the 2nd finger, which was just on the adjacent black key (f​​​​​​​), the 3rd finger may remain on a, which it played in the previous bar. Therefore, taking into account a possibility of a mistake, we give an alternative suggestion with the use of the 2nd finger.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE

b. 567-568

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

Slur in bar 567 in FE

2 slurs in EE & GE3

Slur in bars 567-568 suggested by the editors
..

The missing slur over bar 568 must be considered an inaccuracy. The slur added in EE and GE3 is a revision that is easiest to implement in print. In the main text, we suggest a two-bar-long slur modelled after the authentic slur in analogous bars 216-217.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 567

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

​​​​​​​under 3rd semiquaver in FE (→EE)

​​​​​​​ under minim in GE
..

The shift of the ​​​​​​​ mark most probably resulted from lack of space in [A] ​​​​​​​under the stem of the minim in the L.H. In GE, the mark was placed in accordance with the pianistic sense, i.e. at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 568-572

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

..

In the main text, we omit the unjustified sharps before f2 and f in bar 568, the F1-F octave in bar 570, F in bar 571 and f​​​​​​​ in bar 572. The accidentals were omitted also in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign

b. 568

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Arpeggio sign in A (→FC) & GE2 (→GE3)

No sign in FE (→EE) & GE1
..

The missing arpeggio must be a result of the engravers' inattention, particularly in FE, in which the last arpeggios in this section were printed in b. 560. The mark was added in GE2 (→GE3). See also the note below and in b. 570-572.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions