mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Placement of markings

b. 115-118

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

2 slurs in FE (→EE)

3 slurs in GE1 (→GE2)

Dots & slurs in GE3

2 slurs suggested by the editors

3 slurs (our alternative suggestion)
..

One can doubt whether the slurs of FE (→EE) faithfully convey Chopin's intention – above all, it is the combination of two three-note motifs in bars 116-117 that is puzzling; the absence of slurs in bar 117 (and 115) may also be considered an inaccuracy. Those objections are confirmed by the explicit notation of FEorch (→GEorch), in which all the aforementioned motifs are consistently separated with slurs in both parts of violins. It is perhaps on that basis that GE1 (→GE2) separated the slur in bars 116-117. According to us, it is also highly likely that the Chopinesque slurs – regardless of their number and range – were written over the notes, since the main melodic line is constituted by the topmost notes of the chords. Moving indications – slurs, dots, accents – to the side of noteheads, which was considered the right placement, was frequently used in Chopinesque editions. Therefore, in the main text we give the slurs of FE moved to above the stave; we give the slurs of GE1 (→GE2) – also moved – as an alternative suggestion. 

The version of GE3, which drastically changes the text of FE (→GE1→GE2), is totally arbitrary.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions

b. 119-121

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Short accents in GE

Different accents in FE

Short accents in EE
..

In the main text we suggest accents as written down in EE. This solution combines the most certain elements of the versions of GE1 and FE:

  • short accents after GE, since in FE each mark is of a different length – short, short/long, long, respectively – which cannot correspond to Chopin's intention;
  • accents under the R.H. octaves as in FE, for reasons of consistency – in GE the remaining bars in this section (b. 111-124) do not contain any accents at all. The position of the accents in GE could have resulted from a routine revision of the engraver – in one-part notation, the marks are generally placed on the side of noteheads.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings

b. 123-124

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

d2 repeated in AF (→FE→EE)

d2 tied in GE
..

In the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic version of AF (→FE→EE). In turn, the authenticity of the version of GE, although likely, is uncertain – it may result from a routine revision consisting in moving the slur to the side of the noteheads (in GE the stems point downwards). There are numerous examples of such changes in Chopin's pieces, cf., e.g. the Mazurka in G Minor, Op. 24 No. 1, b. 3 or the Nocturne in D Major, Op. 27 No. 2, b. 76-77. Therefore, it is possible that the notation of [AG] was no different from AF.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 139

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

No sign in A

Tie to F in FE (→GE1)

Slur e-f in EE & GE2 (→GE3→GE4)
..

As in bars 35-36, the tie sustaining F is most probably an erroneous interpretation of the motivic slur of e-f added by Chopin in the proofreading of FE1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions

b. 140

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

No sign in A

Tie to F in FE (→GE1)

Slur e-f in EE & GE2 (→GE3→GE4)
..

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions