mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : FE revisions

b. 4-36

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In A (→#CF) Chopin did not introduce any additional indications over the semibreve rests (bars 4, 12, 23-24, 28 and 36), which was reproduced only in GE2. In FE (→EE) it was the digit 1 that was placed over each single rest, whereas a pair of bars with rests was replaced with a double bar with a two-bar rest provided with the digit 2. In GE1 in each of the discussed bars both rests were provided with the digit 1. A similar notation was introduced in GE3, in which, however, the ones in bar 24 were replaced with twos. In the main text we keep the simple but unequivocal Chopinesque notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 4

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

a1 in A (→FC→GE1), literal reading

a1 in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)
..

When interpreted literally, the version of A (→FC→GE1), in which the 4th demisemiquaver on the last beat of the bar is an a1, is most probably a mistake, although the interval structure of the four middle demisemiquavers (from the 3rd to the 6th in the eight-note figure) is strictly analogous to the seven preceding figures. It is indicated by a broader tonal context of this phrase and of the entire Prelude – the second of those four notes is never altered, while the key to which Chopin returns in the 2nd half of that bar is F minor, and not F major. A natural was added – most probably by Fontana – in FE (→EE); an identical addition was also introduced in GE2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

Two  in GC (→GE)

Two-bar  in FE (→EE)
..

According to us, the most likely explanation for the existing discrepancy between the sources based on [A] is the sometimes used by the engravers identification of two (or more) following  signs with one longer. A possible Chopin's correction in [A], introduced already after preparing GC, which is potentially an alternative explanation, seems to be poorly justified:

  • two  do not exclude a continuous crescendo, therefore, there is no need to combine the signs;
  • only the separate signs show also a dynamic change defining the character of the one-bar repetitive motifs, ended with an accent.

Due to this fact, in the main text we give the source and stylistically unquestionable indications of GC (→GE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions , Hairpins denoting continuation

b. 5-37

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

4 wedges in A, probable interpretation

4 dots in A, possible interpretation

3 wedges & dot in FC

2 times 2 dots in FE (→EE)

4 times 2 dots in GE
..

In this context, the markings with which Chopin provided the crotchets in bars 5, 13, 29 and 37 in A may only denote staccato only, although it is not obvious whether he meant wedges or dots, since they clearly differ from dots (e.g. numerous dots extending minims or crotchets), yet their shape also does not bring to mind wedges or even vertical dashes, which could be easily identified with them. Due to that reason, in the main text we also suggest dots, next to wedges, as an alternative solution. In the remaining sources the notation of A was inaccurately reproduced; GE is an exception; in that edition the notation was unified to a form that is absent in those bars both in A and FC.   

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , FE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Slur reaching beyond bar 6 in Afrag, GE & contextual interpretation of A1

Slur to end of bar 6 in A1, literal reading

Slur to end of bar 5, interpretation 

Slur to minim in bar 6 in FE2 & EE
..

The slurs of Afrag and GE are unequivocal; since such a slur is featured in all analogous bars in GE, we give it – as present in [A2] – in the main text. The slur of FE is clearly erroneous, which was corrected in FE2 and EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with b. 1-2. The slur of A1 is problematic; just like the remaining slurs in the 1st line of the manuscript, it reaches the end of the bar, yet its shape suggests that it is supposed to be led to the beginning of the next bar. It is explicitly confirmed by the fact of ending the slur in b. 11 (on a new line) as well as by the unequivocal slur in b. 25-27, corrected by Chopin. In such a context, we interpret the slur of A1 as reaching the 1st quaver in b. 7.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs