mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 494-501

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

8 long accents in A

7 short & 1 long accents in GE1

7 short accents in FE

8 short accents in EE & GE2
..

Out of eight long accents written in A, GE1 reproduced in this form only the mark in bar 497, which is naturally an accidental inaccuracy. The mark in this bar is slightly longer also in FE (→EE); however, the difference is so small that it is difficult to consider it meaningful. In GE2 all accents were unified.
FE omitted the last mark, in bar 501, most probably due to an oversight. The accent was added in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 498-501

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

Dashes in A & GE2

No dashes in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

GE1 (→FE→Ee) overlooked the dashes marking the range of the dynamic change. Similarly in bars 507-509 (and in many other places).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 507-509

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

Dashes in A & GE2

No dashes in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Just like in bars 498-501, GE1 (→FE→EE) overlooked the dashes marking the range of the dynamic change.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 508-515

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

4 six-note slurs in A (contextual interpretation→FE→EE)

2 five-note slurs & 1 longer in FC

3 five-note slurs & 1 longer in GE1

4 five-note slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The slur of A in b. 508 indicates the e2 minim in the next bar clearly enough for it to be considered a 6-note slur, according to us. This is how it was interpreted in FE (→EE). However, we consider a similar slur in FC to be shorter, encompassing 5 notes, since the minim starting in b. 509 is written at quite a distance from the bar line and does not seem to be related to that slur. The 5-note slur in GE corresponds to that interpretation. The 3 remaining slurs in A (b. 510-511, 512-513 and 514-515) undoubtedly encompass 6 notes, which was also correctly reproduced in GE (→EE), whereas in FC – inaccurately and with mistake (the missing slur in b. 512-513). GE1 repeated the notation of FC, adding the overlooked slur (anyway, the addition is careless, since when interpreted literally, the slur begins from the tied e2 crotchet at the beginning of the bar). GE2 (→GE3) eventually unified the slurs, so that all encompass quavers only.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 521

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A & GE

Shorter  in FC

in bar 521 in FE (→EE)

Long accent in FED
..

According to us, the placement of the  hairpin under the L.H. chords in A was forced by lack of place over them: due to the notation of the topmost notes of the chords on the top stave, the mark must have been situated in a place already occupied by the R.H. slur and rests. It is confirmed by a teaching entry in FED, which we thus consider to be the most accurate expression of Chopin's intention. The hairpin of A was reproduced inaccurately both in FC and FE. In turn, the version of GE is close enough to the notation of A to be considered equivalent.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC